Would have included Invoke, SDNext and ComfyUI in the AI generators. Most people won’t use a raw model

Interesting, I paid the same for my phone. But I will keep it five years so it will be a less cheap pixel then

Unfortunately pixel phones are too expensive for a phone. I went with a Galaxy A34 which is good, but no graphene os for me

The state knows

You can fork signal’s protocol

Hopefully one day they’ll all use Signal

Sure you can always infinitely define what is behind but I don’t think it is relevant here or you couldn’t do any moral logic.

The two axioms I assumed are A1 a proven fact and A2 the very defintion of having something to hide. It is enough for this specific problem.

I don’t see how Gödel’s theorems are useful since they say that a given system of actions is either incomplete or inconsistent. With these two axioms it’s hardly inconsistent and we don’t care about it being incomplete since we only have one theorem to prove

You’re welcome :) to be honest it’s my first for this as well 😂, but I do have experience with math.

The one thing that ticked me with your proof, was about your phrasing. You were trying to prove !(p=>q) i.e. p^!q by a counter example, but your wrote “suppose we have p^!q”, which is already the thesis of the proof. So what you wrote is essentially “We will proof A is false. Suppose !A, then !A.” which is not proving !A. What you should have done is to remove the “suppose” part and say if p=>q then if I nothing to hide I should not be concerned, but I can have nothing to hide and be concerned, which is a contradiction. Then your proof would be somewhat correct but my last two arguments still hold. The issue could be solved woth some modals or quantifiers to express the different people.

I do agree with you point and opinion, but that “logical proof” is one of the worst I’ve read.

The “Nothing to Hide” argument could be restated that way:

Axioms: A1: Surveillance reveals hidden things A2: If I have something to hide, I would be concerned if it’s revealed

Propositions p: I have something to hide q: I should be concerned about surveillance

We deduce from the axioms that p => q : “if I have something to hide I must be concerned about surveillance”.

The logical fallacy of the nothing to hide is to deduce !p => !q : “If I have nothing to hide I should not fear surveillance”. Which is a case of Denying the antecedent fallacy.

Another fallacy of the argument is that they suppose !p is true, which is a debunked fact.

What was wrong with your proof was that you used another human to disprove a fact about the first one. The I may not be switchable because the other human may not have the same axioms. Moreover, you statement was about “should” but if someone doesn’t do something they only should do, it’s not a contradiction

😄

La matrice est universelle, elle est omniprésente, elle est avec nous ici en ce moment même, elle est le monde qu’on superpose à ton regard pour t’empêcher de voir la vérité.

Quelle vérité ? Le fait que tu es un esclave Néo. Le monde est une prison, sans espoir, ni saveur, ni odeur, une prison pour ton esprit.

Why?

Nice! I like the Human Benchmark website. Where do you take user stats from? The app is nice but would be cool if it supported dark theme and maybe material you colors. The blue and white is hard on my eyes

It is since I criticized only non-constructive criticizing and not critizing in general

“And no you’re not a shit person for critizing any work” is the strawman

I couldn’t care less about you giving no shit about being a shit person for shitting on voluntary work. You could just have put the constructive criticism. Putting valid reasons doesn’t justify throwing in an invalid one

Constructive criticism is different than talking shit. Still a useless debate

Nice strawman btw

You’re welcome

What a useless debate. Anyway they were asking why I was “condescending”, well if you shit on a voluntary work, just because it’s not at your taste, you are a shit person

It’s the cause, not an excuse