No problem friend. It is fairly hard to handle all those other phones - see how LineageOS keeps it’s supported list fairly small!

Apple routinely slows down its phones with every major update, promoting people buying $1k+ phones every 2-3 years.

Pixels are the main target of aftermarket ROMs because they are reference Android devices with highly available unlocked developer modes. Most companies producing phones do things like add propriety changes that require substantial workarounds for relatively basic hardware functionality and make it much more difficult to even install an aftermarket ROM.

Really this is all a consequence of capitalism itself and the need to lock in ecosystems to establish controlled markets (allowing for controlling one’s own profit). Every phone could be fully unlockable and hackable by the end user, but companies specifically prevent this in order to maximize their own profits.

Thanks for your permission to reply to your comment your highness.

Well you see, the last reply didn’t respond germanely to what I had said. It instead made a baseless accusation. So I invited you to continue the conversation germanely. I can always just stop replying to you.

You’re right, they’re LLM’s.

LLMs, but sure close enough.

There are absolutely effective ways to use it to write code or do other tasks, as long as you are not just plugging in whatever it gives you without any understanding of what it’s doing.

“Effective” is vague. I have made more specific criticisms. Slop vibe coders think their work is effective, don’t they? Even as they leave critical endpoints exposed, unauthenticated.

As I said, using these “tools” means someone is now in the position of doing code reviews of an incompetent junior dev that keeps making the same kinds of mistakes, some of which I listed. And yet those who seem most enamored with these tools actually can’t do that review, as those who can realize how much time is not saved by having to review the code of an incompetent junior dev that, for example, keeps doing rewrites rather than addressing a problem you pointed out directly.

You’re failing to even think about those possibilities.

I have already given examples and you have not replied to them.

I don’t develop software. I write code for myself to complete automated tasks.

There is no difference between those things. But sure you are saying you are the only user of your software. Nobody else has to suffer if something goes wrong, you don’t get fired, and maybe it isn’t exposed to the internet or your LAN so you don’t have to think about security (who knows?). At the same time if the work is to trivial the value of the tool itself also diminishes. Is it more than 500 lines of code? Does it need to be? How do you know it’s correct? Does it need to be correct? Most code is read many more times than it is written and the writing portion is more about thinking about and understanding the problem to solve. The time savings is not particularly high unless being used as a way for someone that doesn’t understand these things to make a tool that looks correct with a scant once over. It helps them because they couldn’t write the widget in the first place. The LLM might do the widget in 10 seconds and then you have to review it for 5-10 minutes. Writing the widget might take 5-10 minutes and then need almost zero review because you already did the review thinking as part of the process.

I’m not programming missile launches. It’s completely safe and effective to use AI in many ways.

If my criticisms, which have not been addressed, apply, then it’s neither.

You can absolutely use LLM’s for research. What do you think Google does? It provides you with options to learn from.

Google is ostensibly a search engine. It generates an ordered list of results ordered by "relevance’, where relevance used to be pagerank and the idea was that it would crawl pages, index content, tie them together, and give you the results that were most-linked and most tied to your search terms. So Google theoretically finds you relevant web pages. Of course, it is highly limited by the terms you use, what is accessible on the internet, and what their censorship teams allow you to see. I would never tell someone who wanted to actually learn about a topic to just Google it. They’re just as likely to come across an accurate resource as they are to use one that is wrong in a serious way, ranging from subtly (but importantly) wrong to blatantly ridiculous yet entirely believable by someone that just starts typing in terms to Google to learn something.

Google does not provide you with options to learn from. It provides you its semi-curated list of websites in response to search terms, and every single one you see on the first page (the only one 99% of people see) may be bullshit.

Does that mean it can’t be used for research? No. It can help you locate websites that do have good information, obviously. But it’s not a particularly good tool and LLMs are even worse for the reasons I’ve already described.

An LLM derives answers from search results or pretrained knowledge

Incorrect. An LLM constructs text streams based on its model(s) and inputs, the inputs being your prompt, generally the entire history of your “conversation” (hence it getting stuck on things it previously said even if you pointed out they are wrong), and whatever the devs decided to prepend to the inputs to make the LLM behave less poorly. They are not knowledge systems, they don’t think, and they don’t know things. The search results are indeed sometimes part of it, in that they are also added to the inputs.

and you have to opportunity to either run with that or use it effectively to dig in more and validate these answers.

It is not interesting or salient that you can decide to accept or reject what an LLM says. This applies regardless of whether my criticisms are true - criticisms you have not addressed.

Your fight is not with AI. It’s with dumb people. LLM’s are just a tool.

What I see is people making papier mache houses and telling me how cool it is that papier mache can build a house. It’s so fast and easy! And look, it’s house-shaped! Apparently my fight is with papier mache and not, say, the people who are telling me how great it is to build houses out of it. “It’s just a tool! You can’t be dumb about using it! Use it to build houses! Obviously you’ve just never used papier mache.”

Please don’t respond. Thanks!

So, you didn’t respond germanely to what I said and are resorting to bad faith due to your perception of condescension.

I will likely not respond to you further. You don’t seem interested in engaging on this topic in good faith.

1. They’re LLMs. GPT is the name given to some of OpenAI’s models. Most LLMs that people use, including for generating software, are not based on GPT.

2. My examples, and I explicitly wrote about them as such, are based on others’ experiences as well. Not to mention a fundamental understanding of how these systems work and why and how they fail. I am not exactly new to building or using large language models.

3. I haven’t written about them as a “replacement brain” but doing something foolish like using them for research is exactly that. It’s like having an encyclopedia at your fingertips so you spend less effort in learning about various subjects, so you now don’t exercise part of your brain to actually understand materials. But worse: this encyclopedia lies and makes things up to match the prompts you give it (weighed against its model), to give the appearance of certainty, to best recapitulate your chat history. Though it can’t even lie because it doesn’t know anything, it just does pattern generation. Oh, and worse still, they are trained on the worst information for research (e.g. Reddit) and tuned for various false narratives depending on the topic. Rather than rely on them for research one should learn basic media criticism.

Using them to generate code leads to the problems I described for the reasons I gave. You can germanely respond to that if you’d like.

Liberals truly believe Great Man Theory

Emphasis on consistently.

Coding: AI slop gives devs undue confidence to introduce glaring bugs and security holes and unmaintainable structures as they are not accustomed to doing proper code reviews (which is now their role - reviewing bad junior dev code). It works great at first, seemingly, and then racks up a massive cost later in the form of fixing its problems. Of course, you can just not fix those problems and live with terrible security and constantly rewriting half the codebase to try and imolement a single feature. LLMs can reproduce patterns but can’t really think. You will end up spending just as much time, if not more, building something half decent using it, but then likely end up not properly understanding what was built. And God help you if you want to implement using version 4.3 of some library rather than he much more publicly documented version 3.x.

Automation: I dunno the only irl examples I have seen of automation have been catastrophes because the person trusted a broken implementation. They were real excited at first and then had a bad time a couple months later. But I’m sure there are examples of this where “good enough” meshes reasonably well with the capabilities of LLMs.

Research: Oh I strongly discourage this. These are pattern regurgitation machines, they will reproduce what is common and that is not the same as what is true, and that is before accounting for “hallucinations”, which is really just more pattern-making, it is the same as the non-hallucinatioms but just more obviously wrong rather than subtly wrong. This is a surefire way to unlearn how to do good research and adopt false ideas without even knowing it.

Re: reading and believing headlines: yes that will also lead you astray. Doesn’t make the lie regurgitation machine a good idea for most topics.

Re: “Arrogance and virtue signaling” I have absolutely no idea what you are referring to.

What do you even get out of it? Chatbots are too often full of shit to do anything consistently useful except send manager-coddling emails.

“We weresupposed to prioritize optics by rubber stamping this war of aggression and getting our military contractor campaign donations!”

Ah yes, the embarrassed fascism comm

The best part of this comment is how it implies that people from China, Cuba, or Vietnam are just one big unit that all think and act the same, all while baselessly accusing davel of orientalism.

You should try to set your own bar at basic honesty and see how it works out for you.

Imagine being angry at dessalines.

I am not speculating, I am actually informed about Uyghur culture. You were speculating by extrapolating from your personal circumstances.

Anyways, I don’t think I was unclear that I’m no longer interested in talking to you. You’re on your own to do self-improvement now. Most people will not be as patient as I have been.

The knee-jerk assignment of never drinking alcohol is an actual islamophobic trope and is used by people unaware of the diversity of thought I described that goes far beyond a handful of past leaders.

I’m bored with your selective and bad faith responses. Please do self-criticism on how to be honest in conversation, as you are not responsive when I point it out.

Silk road cultures often made wine, much of the region is arid and carefully cultivated through shared ancient techniques, often from Persia. Not all muslims avoid alcohol, including those from grapes, if that is what you are thinking. In fact, among islamophobes in the West, a presumption of complete avoidance is used to bully and harass muslims. Of course those islamophobes deserve any bad things that come their way.

You may be familiar with Shiraz, for example. This is a Persian style of wine whose production has been banned since the revolution, but the entire eastern area from Iean and beyond has often made and drank wine, including muslims. Though it was not just Persia where muslims in the middle east produced and consumed wine. Many scholars wrote of doing so and of leaders partaking.

Many people know only modern Maghreb and western Middle Eastern cultural practices but these are not all universal for muslims.

the fact that you think Taliban and Salafism are related is being uninformed.

I noted them as two different things present in Afghanistan, actially. The Taliban and Salafists fought one another in recent history. The Taliban won, but there are still Salafist elements present in Afghanistan. You have simply misunderstood, perhaps being too eager to fight rather than seek understanding. I am giving you many, many opportunities to seek understanding.

Note that you ignored essentially everything else I said, only focusing on whete you thought you had caught me being wrong. So eager to lecture and dismiss! But where is the rest? Like I said, please be direct and honest.

Also Taliban expelled both USSR and USA, both were colonialists to the people of Afghanistan.

Not really true for either case. The USSR provided support to an incompetent socialist Afghan state on its border that asked for help. The US funded the proto-Taliban and others to make this more costly for the USSR at the expense of Afghan lives and prolonged war. They left after it was clear the incompetent socialist state would fall. There was no colonization by the USSR whatsoever.

Later, the US invaded as part of ita pretextual response to 9/11, which was reallt just islamophobic imperialism. It did not actually do any collaborative, it neither extracted much from Adghanistan nor built anything there. It just occupied and killed, leaving Afghanistan on a constant low boil of war for two decades.

While ISIS only ever fought against Muslims (their first enemy was The Free Syrian Army which was actually close to ending the conflict in Syria years ago). Aren’t you now putting labels on people cuz they look similar

I haven’t said anything about Daesh so I have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe it is because they are Salafists? They are not the only ones. Your attempted point here is fairly ironic.

and I ask for source, doing simple search for “Uyghur weddings” brings me to this project: https://www.youtube.com/@uyghurmeshrepproject8697/video , and I don’t see an example of coed dancing. In my view you see people dancing together and you think “yeah they’re treating them well, building some integration for the individual”, but I see only shame, humiliation and erasure of culture in that, almost like a scene from the manga that I mentioned.

Uyghur weddings are often segregated in seating, then later when dancing starts they begin dancing along those same lines. Then, later, it is not incommon for the larger group to dance together. You should note that the channel you posted is from Kazkhstan and Uyghur practice varies even within Xinjaing, and of course between countries.

You seem to have (awkwardly) asked for a source od Uyghur coed danxing, possinly. It is honestly not clear. But I’ll give you an example from just one day ago by a popular travel blogger who constantly shows regular people living their lives: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IciipByFPoE.

Note that it progresses exactly how I described: segregated seating, then separate dancing, then people come together and keep dancing and having a nice time. There are also more traditional Uyghur dance performances that are coed, usually performed by peolle who train - dancers, amateur or professional. And of course other eventa where people dance.

I don’t know.

The question I asked is related to what I had said just before. I said you were wrong about something and explained how. You should ask how you arrived at not just false beliefa but ones you are willing to share and argue about.

It is not unnecessarily aggressive, it is honest and challenging. When did I insult you? Challenging you to be consistent and forthcoming and to question what you have said is not an insult.

What sources would you want? You are perfectly capable of asking for sources if you are curious.

Regarding muslim dancing behavior, you may want to inform itself about the variety of Islamic practices in Central Asia. Afghanistan even internally pretty different practices that include Kazakhs and Turkmens, not just the freshly imported Salafism and the Talaban and so on.

Islam is not monolithic and treatments of the meanings in the Quran and how Hadith are considered vary. Surely you are aware of this, everyone knows the salient distinction made between Sunni and Shia and how they understand these things. I have already explained that Uyghurs have traditional coed dancing traditions as well as segregated. You can easily verify this if you would like. So, given that you were completely wrong about this fact, what do you think about how you described the video? Were you using strong information or guessing to look for a negative interpretation in line with the spirit of the narrator? Are you immune to propaganda? What is the right and honest way to handle this?

I don’t know. You didn’t answer my questions.

The problem is not with the editing. The problem is that men and women dancing and singing together in happiness is literally just appealing to westerners, being of similar culture to Uyghurs I’d only be part of this practice as a humiliation ritual.

Uyghurs traditionally do both coed and segregated dancing depending on the event, the locale, the families, etc. Trying to shoehorn them based on your claims about your aculture is a form of tokenization, projection, and even islamophobia, given how you characterize this as universally muslim, whereas islamic practice is actually rich with cultural variety over geography and time.

Perhaps you should recognize your own ignorance in this matter. Are you here asking questions about people in a large and populous region with which you are unfamiliar, or are you here to lecture others about it? Does your culture promote speaking authoritatively about things you do not understand, to the detriment of others?

Another thing that went passive but is really huge is when the guy at 00:32 was asked how often he prays and he answered with the playbook “China’s laws define schools as public places. And in public places religious activities are not allowed”.

Suddenly you are familiar with “the playbook”? How long have you known this “playbook”?

But really, you started by saying it is not editing, but at 00:32 there is literally a jump cut between question and answer, with an entirely different camera angle for the presented answer. Do you know what was said before and after, or is 5 seconds of selective BBC editing enough? What has given you this confidence?

The worst part is that the officials basically admitted that they took these people based on predictions ? Like even if we ignore the ethical dilemma, you want me to believe that statistics&probability predicts which person will commit crime with ? That’s like a book example of bad math imo.

The worst part is that the officials basically admitted that they took these people based on predictions ? Like even if we ignore the ethical dilemma, you want me to believe that statistics&probability predicts which person will commit crime with ? That’s like a book example of bad math imo.

If you listen to the answers and not the narrator, you wipl find they sound exactly like progressives in the West trying to use preventative approaches and actually describe rehabikitating people who have committed minor crimes. Like the one literally says they want to rehabilitate those who commit minor crimes. You have come away with the impression that it is some claim about Minority Report-esque precog crimes because the narrator told you this, but not the the interviewees.

This is actually a fairly rosy picture. As I have already explained, social networks also led to people being required to attend these facilities. It is true that radicalizatikn is more frequent within social networks, it is literally a method used by all competent organizers to grow their impact. That does not mean it is good or right for a state to use this to coerce or punish (though they are not prisons), of course. But one must have perspective. What did the US and its friends do to muslim-majority nations after 9/11? Surely building skills and competency is a much less bad thing to coerce than death and disposession.

How did they rule out COVID or the flu? Most tests that US doctors use are not very good at ruling out either, just confirming. They can do true positives but are not as good at true negatives. Also, to be blunt, many people are in denial about COVID and fib to themselves and others about it. “They ruled it out” might really mean, “we downplayed some of our symptoms and the doctor said that might mean COVID is unlikely”.

But there are many respiratory illnesses aside from COVID and the flu and ones that cause a scratchy throat aside from strep throat, which is caused by just one type of bacteria.

I recommend masking in shared indoor spaces to protect yourself. This will also make you better able to help them if needed. And wash your hands + avoid touching your face when around them.