[–] 3 points 9 months ago (1 child)

I have never seen or heard of a single example of a study that would be unethical due to true findings being predictably harmful to people.

These studies are not examples because their methodology doesn't hold up to the slightest scrutiny. They are not seeking the truth in any way.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 12 points 9 months ago* (6 children)

    maybe they were looking for extra special characters like 🁄 or ⶸ. Who am I kidding, RFC 1738 tells us that literally everything is unsafe and you know, we need to prepare for the inevitable occasion when the password somehow ends up inside an URL.

    The characters "<" and ">" are unsafe because they are used as the delimiters around URLs in free text;
    the quote mark (""") is used to delimit URLs in some systems.
    The character "#" is unsafe
    The character "%" is unsafe

    It ends up with

    Thus, only alphanumerics, the special characters
    $ - _ . + ! * ' ( ) ,
    are safe

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    counterpoint:

    The first reliably documented report of Psilocybe semilanceata intoxication involved a British family in 1799, who prepared a meal with mushrooms they had picked in London's Green Park

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 12 points 11 months ago

    Sorry for the following somewhat disproportionate aggression

    Searle said

    I feel somewhat embarrassed to give even this answer to the systems theory because the theory seems to me so unplausible to start with. The idea is that while a person doesn’t understand Chinese, somehow the conjunction of that person and bits of paper might understand Chinese. It is not easy for me to imagine how someone who was not in the grip of an ideology would find the idea at all plausible

    As I was reading this I was screaming silently: YOU invented the chinese room. It was ENTIRELY YOUR IDEA to come up with a ridiculous, unphysical, implausible thought experiment where a single human somehow does the task of millenia in the span of minutes.
    And now you object that it seems implausible???

    Millenia is very optimistic by the way. If you tried to simulate chatgpt with paper and a pen, it would take much, much longer than that.
    AND THE PIECE OF JUNK STILL WOULDN'T EVEN GET THE CHINESE CHARACTERS RIGHT.

    Author echoes my thoughts by calmly stating:

    Searle simply puts the cart before the horse. Let the high speed men with paper, pencil, and rubber commence using their rulebook to carry on a conversation, whether in Chinese or any other language, and then we can discuss the metaphysical implications."

    Motherfucker, Sartre has set the cart on fire and shot the horse, and you are contemplating whether to dance on the remains!
    Ok, ok, maybe it metaphysically makes sense. But you're exhaustively drawing a connection between the metaphysical and the practical! Now it can't make sense!

    Interrogate our intuitions with one centillion shrimp.
    incoherent screeching

  • source
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Rendering is not what you are doing server side.

    No shit sherlock. Rendering requires information about the game, and that information is enough to allow cheating. Aimbots don't need to perform "invalid actions" in order to wreck a game. They just need to be faster and more accurate than most human players. Trying to heuristically detect aimbots is also commonly used alongside other anticheat methods, it just doesn't work (unless you have people manually reviewing individual reported cheaters, but companies try to avoid that because it's expensive and risks false positives).

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • view more: ‹ prev next ›