Professional athletes also have some of the strongest unions in the country, since they’re a small group of practically irreplaceable workers, and many of the league structures are the result of collective bargaining between played and owners.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claus_Wedekind

Maybe a weird take, but check out some fencing shoes. There’s a ton of variety but they seem to have the traits you’re looking for:

• Rounded heel
• Responsive up in the toes
• Generally look like normal street shoes

Not today

It’s FOSS and decentralized/supports self hosting, plus has a large following in fediverse circles so it gets colloquially lumped in

Mlem also supports keyword filters

Those are arguably the most “made for humans” languages—they’re made to make humans laugh and/or headbutt a railroad spike in frustration

Removed by mod

Or if you’d prefer it in video form: https://youtu.be/eECjjLNAOd4

As with any public forum, by putting content on Lemmy you make it available to the world at large to do basically whatever they want with. I don’t like AI scrapers in general, but I can’t reasonably take issue with this.

Mandatory Firefly comment

No way to know. All it tells you is that they probably haven’t discarded your application, which is certainly encouraging, but I wouldn’t read too much more into it than that.

Unless your goal is to just get laid, don’t pretend to be anybody but who you are. If your date isn’t happy hanging out with your real self, there’s no future in that relationship.

In my experience, very, but it’s also not magic. Being able to package an application with its environment and ship it to any machine that can run Docker is great but it doesn’t solve the fact that modern deployment architecture can become extremely complicated, and Docker adds another component that needs configuration and debugging to an already complicated stack.

Probably Hercules the Liger. Terrifyingly enormous animal–pictures do not do justice to how intimidating a predator of that mass is.

consistent language

Forsooth, I find thy point fit only for the jakes.

Hate to break it to ya boss but part of speech is descriptive, not prescriptive. Childish would be insisting that every word stay in the tidy little box assigned to it rather than recognizing and appreciating language’s flexibility and constant evolution.

It tests whether your mouse movement looks human–we’re really bad at things like moving in straight lines, so it’s pretty evident from a mouse movement log whether you’re a human or a simple bot. It also takes a bunch of auxiliary browser/environment data into account. It’s not perfect, but it’s complicated enough to defeat to provide fine protection against cheap spam.

• Cross-device integration/the Apple ecosystem. I use a Mac for my userland computing, and the ease with which it works together with my phone is a killer feature. Also in this category is integration with my family’s Apple devices.
• The software ecosystem. Apple’s first party apps and services are really nice across the board, and once again the ecosystem integration is the single biggest reason I use an iPhone. (the user facing apps, at least–Xcode and everything related to it are hot trash).
• Purely subjective, but Android is ugly to me. The hardware, the OS(es), and the apps just look bad to my eye. The iPhone looks and feels nice in a way that I haven’t experienced in an Android product.
• I don’t trust Google and I can’t be bothered to spend any time configuring my phone. I spend too much of my life installing shit and tinkering with config already; I want a phone that just works out of the box.

People being convinced that something is conscious is a long, long way from a compelling argument that something is conscious. People naturally anthropomorphize, and a reasonably accurate human speech predictor is a prime example of something that can be very easily anthropomorphized. It is also unsurprising that LLMs have developed such conceptual nodes; these concepts are fundamental to the human experience, thus undergird most human speech, and it is therefore not only unsurprising but expected that a system built to detect statistical patterns in human speech would identify these foundational concepts.

“So rocks are conscious” isn’t, at least in my opinion, the classic counter to panpsychism; it’s an attempt at reductio ad absurdum, but not a very good one, as the panpsychist can very easily fall back on the credible argument that consciousness comes in degrees, perhaps informed by systematic complexity, and so the consciousness of a rock is to the consciousness of a person as the mass of an atom is to the mass of a brain.

The problem with panpsychism is, and has always been, that there’s absolutely no reason to think that it’s true. It’s a pleasingly neat solution to Chalmers’ “hard problem” of neuroscience, but ultimately just as baseless as positing the existence of an all-powerful God through whose grace we are granted consciousness; that is, it rests on a premise that, while sufficiently explanatory, is neither provable nor disprovable.

We ultimately have absolutely no idea how consciousness arises from physical matter. It is possible that we cannot know, and that the mechanism is hidden in facets of reality that the human experience is not equipped to parse. It is also possible that, given sufficiently advanced neuroscience, we will be able to offer a compelling account of how human consciousness arises. Then—and only then—will we be in a position to credibly offer arguments about machine intelligence. Until then, it is simply a matter of faith. The believers will see a sufficiently advanced language model and convince themselves that there is no way such a thing is not conscious, and the disbelievers will repeat the same tired arguments resting on the notion that a lack of proof is tantamount to a disproof.