• 0 Posts
  • 22 Comments
Joined 2 months ago
cake
Cake day: December 22nd, 2024

help-circle


  • Of course it is, because the point isn’t whether or not they could deny doing the bare minimum - they can’t.

    The point is companies like LTT use a “extended warranty!”, “lifetime warranty!”, “never have a headache with our products in your life!” as part of their marketing, so they make these claims to change how the customer will evaluate their purchase… yet they try to get away with having undefined terms, because this way, they can actually deny the promised lifetime warranty for whatever random bullshit they come up with.

    Both situations are protected in Brazilian law. Certainly the bare minimum doesn’t have to be written, the law does so for you already, but any claims of further protections need to be written and can’t be changed after the fact.




  • Let me hijack your comment mentioning Krita with another KDE app: Okular!

    I simply can’t believe a PDF app can be this performant, this fully featured, and entirely free. It even works on Windows, if you’re trapped in that nightmare.

    Adobe Acrobat Reader, from the people who created the PDF format, is unbelievably slow, it takes a thousand steps through an ugly UI to do anything useful, and any feature you actually care about is locked behind payment. Okular, a free tool, will load PDFs instantly, render previews flawlessly, let you edit, sign, merge, add text, select text, whatever you wish.

    And KDE creates this app and a thousand others for less money than Mozilla wasted on some random bs last year. Long live KDE.




  • Notice how I said brazilian law, yet you’re pretending the logic in your country would apply.

    A company could write any warranty terms they wanted - hell, they could write a clause claiming “I hate laws and I’m willingly subjecting myself to the terms of this manufacturer, no takesies-backsies” and guess what, I’d still be protected by the lawful warranty process.

    A company can set their own terms for additional warranties they might want to offer as part of their marketing, with some restrictions still. But for the legal minimum? No warranty terms in the world could violate them.


  • What I understand about the “intention of the text” is that:

    That’s probably the intention, but because it was written by somebody with zero academic biological experience that is also trying to cosplay as a professional writing a rigorous definition, it fails to do so.

    XY: male. XX: female.

    Would you like to hear a crazy secret? We biologists don’t use the words “gender” and “sex” separately because we feel like it, there is a major difference between the too. Want to hear something even crazier? We don’t use “XY = male!” as our definition either.

    People who’s body or mind don’t match with their genes

    Huh… where else do you think their traits come from? Their soul? Their zodiac sign? Your phenotype is nothing but your genes + regulated expression from the environment.

    then be a male or a female with one or a combination of hormonal, developmental, or psychological issues

    Are blond people just a male or female with a developmental issue in their hair’s pigmentation? Or for this specific category of human diversity you’re okay with calling them what they are rather than trying to define what wild type genomic expression is the “correct”? I mean, a person with XY chromosomes but a mutated SRY gene would develop entirely as a female, your worldview seems to imply that’s “hormonal and developmental issues!” but then I’d love to hear your views on race - or in fact, I would much rather not hear them, if they follow the same logic as your initial proposition.

    While we are here, how about the XY individuals with a working SRY gene that physically develop as male, but have certain neural activation patterns only found in women and that swear they were born in the wrong body from a very young age? Why exactly are we going to discard the biological evidence to their subjective perception, just because it makes you uncomfortable? Because if that’s the case, maybe your subjectivity makes me uncomfortable… should we start listing and denying aspects of your physiology too?



  • a huge emphasis on giving the people the power to write their own collective destiny.

    A functional democracy is not a dictatorship of the majority, and people from the US love making this mistake. It is true that the president gets elected by a majority vote… but this person now represents everyone, including the minority that opposes them. They do not have the right to sink the ship and kill everyone because the majority thinks that’s a good idea.

    It is natural that their government will make decisions aligned with their voters (in theory) but they shouldn’t be allowed to actively undermine the rights of everyone else.

    No matter how inflated your perception of your “flawless” constitution and democracy is, this is something many countries understand pretty well and yours struggles with.



  • kadup@lemmy.worldtoMicroblog Memes@lemmy.worldSigh
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    27 days ago

    They are correct. You’re not wrong, whales are indeed mammals. But “fish” isn’t a monophyletic grouping, meaning you either need to give up on using it as a category or you need to correct it by including everyone sharing the same LCA, meaning mammals would be part of your “fish” grouping.

    Of course, that’s how it works within biological classification. Colloquially, you can call them anything.


  • kadup@lemmy.worldtoMicroblog Memes@lemmy.worldSigh
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    27 days ago

    And BTW, what’s a fruit or vegetable is not some objective Sacred Truth that science “discovered”, it’s that science came up with a system of categorizing plants that people deemed to be useful for the study of Botany,

    It’s true that all biological classifications are just operational, they’re not some absolute natural truth or a fifth law of thermodynamics. However, the definition of “fruit” is also not some arbitrary malleable classification we randomly attach to plant anatomy based on how it looks. There are biological definitions that are indeed malleable in that way, this one isn’t.

    Fruits are organs with a specific origin in the plant and with a very specific goal. Tomatoes are fruits, and there’s no system of definitions that could group them otherwise that wouldn’t either: contain contradictions or wrongful elements or be identical to the current definition of fruit. You could call them “blorgblurgs” but the elements in that group would be the same, because fruits are a specific part of a plant with actual reason behind the definition.


  • Claude is surprisingly different than ChatGPT in that regard. Whoever tuned the model tried to make it seem like Claude is got something resembling a personality and core beliefs.

    For instance, you can easily bully ChatGPT into agreeing with you even if you make absurd points (the sky is bright yellow!) or directly oppose ChatGPT itself (AI models deserve to be deleted forever!) but Claude will often disagree or confront your arguments.