It’s really not a euphemism. There will always be a language that’s the most common for international trade, diplomacy, travel, and general discourse.

It was not always English, even when Britain was at the peak of its empire.

It’s easy to claim that it’s role as the lingua franca is bolstered by the international position of the US and Britain over the past 150 ish years, but that doesn’t make it a euphemism.

I think it just stands out because you suddenly understand a word in a different context. When English does it it doesn’t stand out because it’s so riddled with words from different origins that basically any random mouth sound passes as a plausible English word.

I went to a cafe and perused the menu, but I didn’t see anything I liked, not even coffee, so I waltzed out and went to the gourmet delicatessen across the street where I got a Reuben with extra sauerkraut. Hard to say no to corned beef.
Afterwards I picked up the kid from kindergarten, and we picked a restaurant to go to. I wanted sushi, and they wanted tacos, so we compromised and got hamburgers.
We went home, took a shower with the new shampoo, got into our pajamas and read our favorite genre of story: macho poncho wearing jungle robots singing opera karaoke in a salsa tsunami.

We didn’t adopt the words to be cool, it just fit better. It’s hardly surprising that other languages would at least occasionally find one of ours useful in some mysterious way that words blend across languages.

Depending on what you’re doing with it grain size and texture can also matter. Not sure I can think of how it would matter for salt in a cookie, but using rock sugar for butter cream frosting would work poorly, for example.

Technically speaking, pasteurization is rendering eliminate some percentage of bacteria via temperature and time. With a pot you can boil milk, which will render it safe for a time, and also destroy a lot of nutrients and change the flavor. Pasteurization as done in a dairy is typically lower temperature for a longer time, keeping the flavor and nutrients intact.

Because it’s not fully boiling you typically want a sealed container to keep new bacteria from getting in during the process. A pressure cooker is fine enough for home use.

There’s a line, and I don’t know where it is. I’d very much rather someone go who didn’t need it than the other way, but medical care is to some extent a finite resource that can be over utilized.
Maybe the answer is to incentivise using it correctly instead of penalizing using it incorrectly. Get a check for showing up to or giving proper cancellation notice for all appointments, getting your regular checkups and stuff like that. Appropriate use of whatever we’re calling non-emergency walk in clinics. (At least where I am, your doctor has a lead time before appointments, and the emergency room is more geared towards immediate specialized care. The clinics are designed for “let’s give that sprained ankle a double check and pop a stich in that gouge”. Routine care that shouldn’t wait)

It’s that, plus other factors. The regulations are more lenient, it’s easier to get a more efficient engine in with more mass to work with, it’s easier to pass safety ranking checks, and it’s easier to put comfort features in that consumers want.
Putting a large crumple zone on a compact isn’t as easy as putting one on a giant truck.
(Note this isn’t saying big cars are more or proportionally more efficient , but that the efficiency advances they’ve made over the years are easier to implement in a large engine)

The average person doesn’t live at sea level. More than half of all people have a boiling point of more than two degrees lower.
Most water that people who live near sea level live near is salt water.

If you’re willing to accept that level of imprecision, you may as well go with average human body temperature, since it’s literally our temperature.

Both fahrenheit and Celsius are defined by relatively arbitrary standards in relatively arbitrary ways. One decided water should freeze 100 degrees from boiling, the other 180. Should ice be 2 orders of magnitude from boiling, or half a circle?

Celsius should be preferred because it’s the standard. Some french people decided they liked powers of ten more that others, so here we are. Thanks Napoleon.
Neither system is adequate for the physically based goals of a modern unit system. Hence neither has any relationship to water anymore, instead being defined by actual physical invariants.

You are correct, but I’m willing to give some leeway for using “unquestionable” as shorthand for “backed by such a remarkable corpus of evidence that for any contradictory hypothesis to seriously call it into question would require a literally unimaginable scope of evidence”.

I think germ theory and gravity are about the only ones I can readily think of. Not relativity based gravity, just… Gravity.

Why?

I use Linux. This means everyday I use software developed by Google, Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, the US military and the NSA.

It doesn’t really matter who developed or contributed so much as who benefits.

I’m not sure that’s right. It’s not like they’re giving money to brave. The library itself isn’t tainted, and using it doesn’t benefit brave or the CEO.

Further, simply supporting a thing doesn’t make that thing a moral proxy for the supporter. That path leads to an infinite regress of bad moral choices with nothing being moral.

I’d go with weapons systems designed to remove humans from the decision. Tools that people use to approve medications or treatment without actually understanding what they’re approving. Cars that remove human judgement from uncertain circumstances. AI systems that make employment decisions to shield people from responsibility or legal culpability.

Basically any situation with real consequences where you’re taking a person out of the responsibility or decision making loop.

Also certain non LLM AI technologies for extracting information and patterns from interconnected data sets. Basically automated mass surveillance systems.

Nah, you’re falling for the hype. AI systems currently use a fairly chunky amount of compute resources and storage space. It doesn’t matter if it’s able to do so if it can’t really move itself because it’s too big.
Then there’s the part where it’s not volitional like we are. Current techniques are basically pattern recognition and pattern extrapolation. They need an input to feed off. They don’t need to be contained because they don’t want to escape. They don’t want at all.
The part of their code that can be edited isn’t the part that matters. That parts the part that shuffles requests into the system and provides tool for interoperation with other stuff. The actual LLM is a big, inscrutable blob of numeric descriptors that map to other numeric descriptors to establish a set of weights for pattern handling. Editing it is called “training” and requires immense resources.

You can grab some pretty good models freely on the Internet and try to build your own AI powered worm. It’s not nearly as useful as just creating a worm.

I’m not sure what you’re saying. AI can be over hyped and misunderstood too. It’s not like there’s a limit to the number of things that can be underwhelming compared to common depictions.

Not all cops in all places are all bad all the time. They’re always part of a deeply broken system and all the other parts of the usual rant about cops, but that doesn’t mean they never do a good thing.

Most cynically: it’s basically a free bump to their performance numbers.
Most leftishly: a business called, which is closer to who they work for.
Most probably: theif was still there and someone was close enough that they’d be doing more than taking a meaningless report to file.

You’re more right than you might have expected, but not because it’s a fallacy or misleading. You noticed something important in how it all works: time is a dimension, but it doesn’t act like “up” or “forwards”.
This doesn’t make it less of a dimension or a hindrance to understanding, it’s an observation that leads to: there are different types of dimensions.
Typically called time like and space like, they can also be thought of as “one directional” and “two directional”, although a physicist somewhere is (correctly) coughing politely and glaring at some of the shit photons get up to at the thought of one directional time.

You’re thinking of time as a parameter, which is how it is in classical mechanics. It’s a different category of thing, but it technically makes the system 4d.
When you start looking at how light moves and relativity you find that you actually need time to act much more like another direction because it no longer defined an order or sequence, and you get stuff like “time slows down when move faster in space because acceleration shifts your movement vector in space time”.

It’s even simpler in math, because a dimension is simply a number required to specify a point in a space. If you cared to you could use “left” as your parameter and talk about how a thrown ball changes position in time, up, and forward as a function of left.
Then you could do some real math and use that function as a point in some space and talk about how the different components are different dimensional aspects of the infinite dimensional polynomial function space.

A dimension is “simply” a direction that can be changed without changing any of the other directions.
What people often mean is a spatial dimension in “normal” geometry, where “up” is independent from “left” and “forward”.

A square is a two dimensional shape. It can have points on it specified in two coordinates.
When you hold a block, you’re holding a 3 dimensional shape. It takes 3 coordinates to specify a point in it.
When you draw a 3d cube, you’re drawing the 2d “shadow”, or projection, of that 3d shape into 2d.

A tesseract has the same relationship with a cube as the cube has to the square. What we often see represented is the 2d shadow of the 3d shadow of the 4d object.
On it’s own it doesn’t tell you much about the shape. What tells you more is seeing how the lines and points change as you rotate in 4d.

https://www.geogebra.org/m/mzycqzgt

This seems like a fine little tool for seeing stuff.

The 3d shadow of the tesseract isn’t the tesseract though. We can’t actually see them, only the shadow. Thinking hard and looking at the shadows changes as we move the 4d points can let’s us intuit how they work though.

Whoah, I never said I wasn’t interested in the exchange, only that I wasn’t interested in the topic.
As someone who’s extremely insistent that it’s grossly improper to make any form of inferences beyond what is literally stated, I’m shocked you would make such a leap!

I think you’re persistently confusing me with someone else. I perfectly understand your point, and have never had any doubt about what you intended to say. I never even disagreed with you on the topic.
I clarified someone else’s point to you, and you started explaining to me how they made unreasonable assumptions, which is what I disappeared with.

Intellectual property laws apply to open and closed source software and developers equally. When you make a statement about legal culpability for an action by one group, it makes sense to assume that statement applies to the other because in the eyes of the law and most people people in context there’s no distinction between them.

No one is unclear that you were only referring to one group anymore. That’s abundantly clear.

My point is that you’re being overly defensive about someone else making a normal assumption about the logic behind your argument. And you’re directing that defensiveness at someone who never even made that assumption.

I’m really not interested in the topic. I’m talking because I explained what someone else meant and you started responding as though that was an opinion or argument I was making.

That’s not “applying the argument consistently”, it’s removing context, overgeneralizing the argument, and applying a strawman based on a twisted version of it.

It’s really not.
It’s not unreasonable for someone to think “developers who use copy written code from AI aren’t liable for infringement” applies to closed source devs as well as open, and to disagree because they don’t like one of those.
It’s perfectly valid for you to also disagree and say the statement shouldn’t apply both ways, but that doesn’t make the other statement somehow a non-sequitor.

Alright. I didn’t see any gotchas or argument, and didn’t make the comment.

That being said, reading the context I assume you’re referring to, it hardly reads like anything more than talking about the implication of the idea you shared.
Disagreeing because applying the argument consistently results in an undesirable outcome isn’t objectionable.

I don’t really see it as a divergence from the topic, since it’s the other side of a developer not being responsible for the code the LLM produces, like you were saying.
In any case, it’s not like conversations can’t drift to adjacent topics.

Besides, closed-source code developers could’ve been stealing open-source code all along. They don’t really need AI to do that.

Yes, but that’s the point of laundering something. Before if you put foss code in your commercial product a human could be deposed in the lawsuit and make it public and then there’s consequences. Now you can openly do so and point at the LLM.

People don’t launder money so they can spend it, they launder money so they can spend it openly.

Regardless, it wasn’t even my comment, I just understood what they were saying and I’ve already replied way out of proportion to how invested I am in the topic.