You forgot “defines a code of conduct and social responsibility so I don’t have to resign from the FSF again.”

Meh, if that happens I’ll just replace the cheap commodity printer… I’m not fixing anything, except the cats.

Yes, it’s an accident - the power button is just a touch sensitive spot on the printer - but they do like to play witn paper, so this would invariably lead to more shenanigans.

I just spit out my coffee reading that, and I wasn’t drinking coffee at the time…

Which is why I don’t mind if they break it - it would let me justify getting a decent laser jet printer.

W. T. F.

I will repeat my earlier statement: I hate printers.

I appreciate the info, but I wasn’t looking for a solution - I just wanted to vent a little…

the idea that these webs of laws or these models of “how things should work” mean anything tho the people with power are complete nonsense.

Kinda ironic that you are discussing the nonsense of “how things should work” on a federated service where you control the intermediaries you work with and through, which is, IMO, the way things should work.

Kum & Go isn’t a charity, yet they found a way to go from zero charitable activity to nonzero. That’s a plus.

So you’re saying the ends are what is important, not the reason the action was taken?

To me, there’s an important philosophical question here – if the right action (or a demonstrably good action) is taken, does it matter why? I think it does.

Let’s say my neighbor doesn’t maintain their property – they don’t mow or clean the landscaping. I decide to do this for them on my own, with their permission of course. There is a difference if I’m doing this to be a good neighbor, as opposed to making sure the neighborhood looks good because I’m selling my house. My actions are the same in both cases, as are the effects and side effects – only the motivation differs. Therefore that motivation deserves to be interrogated and explored.

If you honestly see that as a negative, you should take it as a wake-up call that you’re using an irrationally pessimistic lens to view the world.

I don’t see myself as a pessimist, but I’ll admit this observation is probably correct.

Just writing a cheque to the charity for $43k would have done as much or more, but since their real goal is goosing sales numbers not donating to charity that would run counter to their goal.

This – it’s virtue-signalling to raise sales numbers. If I make a big public statement about my charitable giving, it’s seen very differently than when a big corporation does it.

Another question I have: is anyone changing their purchasing choices because of this? Would you choose a Pepsi fountain drink or a Gatorade instead of a bottle of Coke just because of this? Or add a share size Snickers bar to your gas purchase which you wouldn’t otherwise?

Fair point, and thank you. Let me clarify a bit.

It wasn’t my intention to say ChatGPT isn’t helpful. I’ve heard stories of people using it to great effect, but I’ve also heard stories of people who had it return the same non-solutions they had already found and dismissed. Just like any tool, actually…

I was just pointing out that it is functionally similar to scanning SO, tech docs, Slashdot, Reddit, and other sources looking for an answer to our question. ChatGPT doesn’t have a magical source of knowledge that we collectively also do not have – it just has speed and a lot processing power. We all still have to verify the answers it gives, just like we would anything from SO.

My last sentence was rushed, not 100% accurate, and shows some of my prejudices about ChatGPT. I think ChatGPT works best when it is treated like a rubber duck – give it your problem, ask it for input, but then use that as a prompt to spur your own learning and further discovery. Don’t use it to replace your own thinking and learning.

There was a story once that said if you put an infinite number of monkeys in front of an infinite number of typewriters, they would eventually produce the works of William Shakespeare.

So far, the Internet has not shown that to be true. Example: Twitter.

Now we have an artificial monkey remixing all of that, at our request, and we’re trying to find something resembling Hamlet’s Soliloquy in what it tells us. What it gives you is meaningless unless you interpret it in a way that works for you – how do you know the answer is correct if you don’t test it? In other words, you have to ensure the answers it gives are what you are looking for.

In that scenario, it’s just a big expensive rubber duck you are using to debug your work.

Not just parents – my wife has an unhealthy mobile game addiction. We’ve talked about it and talked about it, but it’s still a heavy draw for her.

Way-neet Joo-are-ease

…there is a big, big difference between calling someone homeless/addict or saying “experiencing homelessness/addiction”

I agree with this – my point in bringing this up was to highlight the differences in the language we use and the images and ideas those words conjure in the reader/listener. Your experiences are much more direct than mine, and I appreciate the insight.

… I don’t think the author intended to degrade people with their wording. … I think we do a disservice to the people directly suffering from homelessness/addiction/mental health by misdirecting our frustrations towards the journalists increasing awareness of the problem.

I see your points. However, had the director of the facility also used the term “homeless”, I would have never posted this. Its the changing of the word from what was said to what was written that gave me pause.

On the other hand, you have also given me some other ways to think about this story and how it was presented. Thanks for forcing me to confront some of my biases.