I’ve driven in places where a few seconds was just how long people sat at the green light. I didn’t get it until I was there long enough to notice how insanely often cross traffic was definitely successfully sneaking through that yellow at the last moment.
I don’t do it to that extent, but I do now give it a few beats to account for other drivers insanity.
I try to assume positive things, so if someone hasn’t gone after a few I tend to assume that they’ve done what I know I’ve done, which is to pull up to the light and rather than intently watch the light, to keep looking at the road and cross traffic and just not notice the light change in my upper periphery.
Way more common if there’s a protected turn at the intersection or it’s otherwise not symmetrical.
In some places that “lemme just squeeze through” can be pretty egregious.
Whether the system accounts for it or not doesn’t change the fact that I’ve driven in places where you’d be foolish not to pause.
I didn’t bring the habit home, at least not to the extent I saw, but it made me a lot more forgiving of people who pause and a lot more aware of how often I actually see people run a red just as it turns green for me.
I’ve had to drive places where time mattered, and even then five seconds just did not matter.
Ah, when you said you assumed they were on their phone I figured that meant you assumed they were on their phone, not that you could see them using their phones.
Seeing someone using their phone at a green light is different from just getting mad at someone for not moving within three seconds.
That one feels kinda meh to me. It solves a handful of non-issues with our current calendar (I don’t care that the month starts on the same day, nor do I care that each day of the year is always the same day of the week). Each months having the same number of days is an improvement. It persists the problem that you still can’t use months or years as a real mathematical unit of measure and extends it to weeks, which is the biggest annoyance with calendars, although it reduces how often that becomes significant. Adding two days that have neither a day of the week nor month would mean significant changes to every computer system that needs to deal with dates, and is just hateful.
The 1st of a month to the 1st of the next will always be one month, but it depends on the month and year how many days that is. So a month as a duration will span either 28 or 29 days. A week is now sometimes 8 days, and a year might still have 365 or 366 days, depending on the year.
How do you even write the date for the days that don’t fit? Like, a form with a box for the date needs to be able to handle Y-M-D formatting but also Y-YearDay. Probably people would just say 06-29 and 12-29, or 07-00 and 01-00, although if year day is the last day of the year it kinda gets weird to say the last day of the year is the zeroth day of the first month of the next year.
There’s just a lot of momentum behind a 12 month year with every day being part of a month and week. Like, more than 6000 years. You start to run into weird issues where people’s religion dictates that every seventh days is special which we’ve currently built into our calendar.
Without actually solving significant issues, it’s just change for changes sake.
Hard disagree on the fractional units. Using rational numbers for those things derives from the frequency with which people need to double and halve things in the fields that use those conventions. Doubling 3/8 to get 6/8 or 3/4 is much easier than doubling .375 to get .75
That one’s nothing to do with the metric system vs imperial, aside from the fields that rely on the convention being largely the ones that created imperial in the first place. If they all switched to metric tomorrow they’d just say they need 3/5 meter spacing.
From everything I’ve heard it’s a hodge podge, since the US, with the worst system, is the only one to use it consistently. Building plans would reference it by cm however.
What I was more referring to was from the perspective of the carpenter doing the work.
Fractions or decimals aren’t specific to us customary or metric. You see decimal inches perfectly often, or at least I do.
Fractions are a more convenient way of dealing with multiplying or dividing numbers without a lot of mental effort. 1/3 of .125 is gonna take a second to figure out. 1/3 of 1/8 is 1/24. 5 1/8 units is just ”5/8”, rather than the .625 in decimal.
It’s definitely less effective for numerical sorting in your head, but if I’m sorting screws or something, I’m probably gonna just look at them rather than compare the labels.
It’s fair to not be as big of a fan. I’m also not saying that rational numbers are more useful in every situation.
I don’t think it’s to controversial to say that it’s generally easier to deal with rational numbers mentally than decimal numbers if you need to use fractional units. Metrics advantage is that you need to use fractional units less often.
Your example is indeed tricky, but it’s still easier than 0.09375 * 0.1328125. I’d much rather do 3 * 17 and 32 * 128.
People making metric designs for things is one thing, but people in metric countries definitely get cabinets built, and those need adjustments that are definitely smaller than a millimeter.
I feel like this is all getting away from the original point though. Fractions are useful when multiplying and dividing whole numbers. Metric did not change how carpenters or craftsmen actually do their work, and how they work is the entire reason people use those fractional units.
Licences are different than physical goods.
With a physical good you’re transferring ownership of that “thing”, and the new owner can do as they like, except for the exceptions made for copyright.
With a licensed thing, it’s closer to a rental. Just because you rented the tool doesn’t mean you can sell it, and it doesn’t mean that the rental company is obligated to let your next of kin keep using it.
This goes double for things like digital media, because the rental company is also the one who has actual possession of the thing. They’re not taking anything, they’re just not giving someone they never did business with access to it.
Their full statement is really just that they’ll comply with a court order specifically relating to the library, less a general estate settlement.
In general, your GOG account and GOG content is not transferable. However, if you can obtain a copy of a court order that specifically entitles someone to your GOG personal account… we’ll do our best to make it happen.
This is really just a more casual phrasing of valves policy.
Steam accounts and games are non-transferable. Steam support can’t provide someone else with access to the account or merge its contents with another account. Your Steam account cannot be transferred via a will.
It’s not like valve is going to ignore a court order either.
A probate court validating a will isn’t a court order is the thing.
For both companies, they agreed to provide you access to the titles in exchange for money. You can’t generally will a service to someone else. It’s why things like bank accounts get crazy weird with estates (weird for anyone other than a banker or lawyer). We’ve had a very long time to work out how we handle it. The money in the account is an asset owned by the estate. It’s a “thing” that you can will. The account itself is owned by the estate, but it can’t be willed because it’s an agreement between the bank and the deceased.
When the estate is being handled, only the person managing it can access the bank account, and then they move the money to the accounts of the person who gets the money, even if it’s at the same bank.
Games in your game library aren’t assets like money is. They’re non-transferable licenses. A physical disk is an asset.
We give you and other GOG users the personal right (known legally as a ‘license’) to use GOG services and to download, access and/or stream (depending on the content) and use GOG content. This license is for your personal use. We can stop or suspend this license in some situations, which are explained later on.
Their user agreement is particularly approachable, and includes nice explanations next to the sections.
This is whole thing is really a case of valve being very explicit about a significant drawback of digital assets to avoid confusion (their support has clearly had to address this situation before 😔). Gog is answering a press question being asked in response to the explicit reply from valve, so of course they’re going to avoid saying “our policy is the same”.
If it were routinely transferable via normal estate transfer, they wouldn’t need to specify the need for a court order, or that the installers are drm free so they couldn’t revoke access. If it went to an estate, the account would transfer automatically with the estate like every other tangible good.
I really think it’s a case of valve being explicit (no, your uncle can’t will you his steam collection), and gog having the same policy but looking for the closest way to say “yes” to avoid falling into the same PR trouble.
“No, access is lost when you die” is a valve support person giving a direct response to an individuals question.
“Yes, if we are given no legal choice” is a gog PR person answering a reporter to sound as good as possible.
It’s one of the better known downsides of digital media, so this whole thing feels a little… Much ado about nothing new.
I’m sure someone will challenge it in the EU then at some point.
In the US not all licenses are transferable, and that includes things like “accounts”.
Valve and gog have the same policy. I’m fairly confident that both of them didn’t decide to violate the law in the same way that’s also consistent with how other digital licensing arrangements work without consulting with some lawyers on their user agreements.
I don’t know what to tell you beyond “in the US, not all licenses are transferable”. Different countries have different laws.
It’s a pretty well trod area of law, so it’s not really contentious that it’s a legal license term in the US. www.shadesofgraylaw.com/…/cant-transfer-this/ is an example. It’s less tested for consumers.
The lawyers are definitely there to protect the company. No lawyer is ever there to follow the intent of the law, because it’s the letter that matters in almost every circumstance.
Knowingly adding an illegal term to the terms of the agreement is a great way to not only fail to protect the company, because the entire thing might get tossed out, but to risk professional consequences.
Even the Microsoft terms of service say “non-transferable unless you’re in Germany or other EU jurisdiction where such clauses are unenforceable”.
The mean number of US presidential felonies is .75.
Trump is truly an extraordinary president, since he’s single handedly raised that number from zero to where it is today, and he’s not even done yet.
Truly providing an excellent education in why statistical means are sometimes very misleading.
Yeah, llms are a really great advancement in language processing, and the ability to let them hook into other systems after sussing out what the user means is legitimately pretty cool.
The issue is that people keep mistaking articulate mimicry of confidence and knowledge as actual knowledge and capability.
It’s doubly frustrating at the moment because people keep thinking that llms are what AI is, and not just a type of AI. It’s like how now people hear “crypto” and assume you’re talking about the currency scheme, which is needlessly frustrating if you work in the security sector.
Making a system that looked at your purchase history (no real other way to get that data reliably otherwise), identified the staple goods you bought often and then tried to predict the cadence that you buy them at would be a totally feasible AI problem. Wouldn’t be even remotely appropriate for an llm until the system found the price by (probably) crudely scraping grocery store websites and then wanted to tell you where to go, because they’re good at things like "turn this data into a friendly shopping list message "
A program that can deduce what groceries you need to buy is a type of AI. AI is a much broader category than the LLM stuff that everyone is currently paying attention to. Most things in the field of AI don’t have particularly awe inspiring appearances, so companies don’t feel compelled to advertise that it’s AI because people expect AI to be “like people” which precludes the vast majority of applications.
AI is artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence is more than just language manipulation, and covers a very broad spectrum of things relating to “computers dynamically perceiving and adapting to their environment to further a goal”.
Having a body of information, using rules to infer new facts in light of that information, and using those rules and facts to respond to user inputs in a meaningful and helpful way is an expression of intelligence.
It’s not human level obviously, and it likely lacks advanced language abilities, but that doesn’t make it not an application of AI.
AI is in a huge number if things,but we usually don’t label it because it’s usually not notable or interesting.
I think where we drifted apart was when I was paying attention to the usage of the word “anticipate”.
If you run out of milk every week and buy more, an intelligent system would know to add it to the list even though you currently have milk. You also would probably want the system to figure out what bread_threshold was dynamically, rather than having to hard code it.
It kinda sounds like you’re the one with the sci-fi conception of what AI is if you think that simple machine learning and pattern recognition algorithms aren’t examples of it.
One sense of AI is as artificial intelligence: a huge swath of computer algorithms, techniques and study relating to machines measuring inputs, pulling information from them, and making decisions based on what they deduce. Sometimes it’s little more than a handful of equations that capture how to group things together by similarity. What matters is that it’s demonstrating demonstrating intelligence or some manner of operating on knowledge.
The other sense of AI is as a synonym for “a general purpose intelligent system of at least human level”.
Your phones auto complete is an example of the first sense of AI. The second sense doesn’t exist.
There’s a tendency for people to want to remove the AI label from anything they’re used to, or that isn’t like that second sense.
The issue is that it’s a language model. You can go a long way by manipulating language to get useful results but it’s still fundamentally limited by languages inability to perform reason, only to mimic it.
Syntax can only take you so far, and it won’t always take you to the right place. Eventually you need something that can reason about the underlying meaning.
He'll be living with this for the rest of his life (lemmy.world)
Everyday, as an American (midwest.social)
“if you can obtain a copy of a court order...we’ll do our best to make it happen" Unlike Steam, Good Old Games claims they are willing to transfer accounts to entitled parties after a user's death (x.com)
https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/36b9c994-7158-462d-89c7-f350f47bb3f8.png
Joe Biden suddenly leads convicted felon Donald Trump in multiple battleground states (www.newsweek.com)
Dreams of AI (lemmy.world)