Hacker Timesnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | exe34's commentslogin

> Again, I don't speak French so I cannot say for sure

This reminds me of the adage, that ChatGPT is really great at everything except my own work.


Yeah, that's why I put the caveat in there. I have no real way to verify the result outside of checking against "known good" translations, though if the known-good translation exists then there's not exactly a lot of reason to do the AI translation in the first place.

I suspect if I knew another language I would be able to find errors in the translation.


Yes, it is another variation on the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect. I have a number of non-developers in my circle of friends who think Claude is about to put me out of work. They think it is just a great tool for them, not a replacement. Of course!

If somebody throws a slop PR at me, I'd love to review it with them. I'd ask them to take me through it and explain everything until I understand exactly what they did and why. Either it will make them avoid me in the future, or it will open their eyes to how important it is to understand what you are submitting for review. I probably won't have to do it twice.

Dogfood

I paid £50 more for a washing machine without wifi/app.

If I have to wield AI to fix your slop, and be held responsible for successfully making it work, then I'm going to be invested in how bad the slop is to begin with. I'm more than happy to be paid to generate slop if I don't have to ever read it and be held responsible for it.

eh, it's a private blog isn't it, they can set whatever terms they want and change their minds.

Geographically, that's quite the zinger. Legally, no. Different laws.

Europe has many many different jurisdictions.

Even if you take the European Union alone and ignore all the other European countries, the EU only legislates over a subset of things for member countries.


The EU has no sovereignty, countries (like Hungary and Germany) can openly disobey it and the worst they can do is kick them out of the EU

kick them out of the EU

AFAIK, not even that. This topic came up in relation to Hungary (before Orban was gone). What I understood from the discussion is that a country can only be punished by not giving them EU funds, etc.


Kicking out is possible, but not established and everyone happy that Orban is gone for now and no immediate need to find out how that process works in reality.

> the worst they can do is kick them out of the EU

As opposed to what? Armed invasion?


Yes. The EU has no army, no legal sovereignty within each country, etc. It's an alliance of countries NOT a single federal government. The individual countries remain in charge of themselves and the alliance is supposed to be structured in a way that only paases things the countries actually want.

So you think it would be better if the EU started a war with a member state that failed to uphold the union's laws?

Why would he or she think that? Your questions are close to strawman arguments in my perception.

Let's follow the timeline, shall we? It shouldn't be difficult as it's a pretty linear tree in the comments.

1. https://qht.co/item?id=48423657

I mentioned that Europe is a lot more than the EU, and even within the EU member countries diverge.

2. https://qht.co/item?id=48423908

trumpdong then makes a comment that I interpret as saying the EU doesn't have a lot of power over member states, and saying that the worst which could happen to one of them is to be kicked out of the EU.

3. https://qht.co/item?id=48424244

Slightly shocked by the idea that the EU should be doing something worse than expelling a member for not following the Union's rules, I use a _reductio ad absurdum_ and ask if they thought the EU should be harder and actually perform an armed invasion of a member state that didn't follow them.

4. https://qht.co/item?id=48425100

To my shock, trumpdong literally says "yes".

5. https://qht.co/item?id=48425487

I, due to the shock described above, decide to question again in more words if that's actually what they mean.

---

Hopefully that responds your question. I see no straw man, but if you still do, please present it.


You did not ask that:

"ask if they thought the EU should be harder and actually perform an armed invasion of a member state that didn't follow them."

You asked this:

"> the worst they can do is kick them out of the EU

As opposed to what? Armed invasion?"

Where trumpdong reploed with a affirmative "yes". So the worst they can do is kick someone out. No one demanded the EU should do armed invasion.


They complained kicking out the worst. I suggested one possible worse possibility (again, in a reductio ad absurdum rhetoric), trying to understand what they thought should be done more than "just kicking them out". They agreed with it.

I don't know why you're taking their pain.


You seem to enjoy either pedantery to feel right, or genuinly missunderstood the conversation. And more pain I am not taking here.

I misunderstood the conversation I was having? Interesting.

Much less the UK.

I'm not sure how much less it is than, say, Bosnia, Serbia, Belarus, Kosovo...

What good is a piece of paper? I have nice toilet paper. It doesn't make me safer when visiting the US.

Maybe you're not safer, but you can get rich quick. Recently someone got $100k compensation for fake DUI charges and resulting wrongful imprisonment.

Interesting entry for the "pro" list.

The entire point of a constitution is that, unlike toilet paper, it can be enforced by the courts.

The very politicized US courts that collude with and are completely in the pocket of whomever's running the country? More developed countries have a clear separation between the judiciary and the executive powers.

In theory, unless the supreme court is bought and paid for and decrees things like "immunity for official business".

Can be, or is? Courts can enforce my toilet paper too.

Trying to imagine how, and the only thing I can think of is that technically you can write a contract on anything? And possibly a cheque, too, because a the cheques in a chequebook are just a standardised IOU form with exactly the same legal weight as if it was done by hand?

(Vague memory that someone used this to avoid paying a bill, because refusing a cheque when offered counted as discharging the debt it represents (if I have the right terminology), and as cheques could be written on anything they chose to write it on a car that physically would not fit through the door).


Just gotta bribe the right judge. My toilet paper says you owe me $10,000 and the judge agrees.

In this thread's context, the "constitution" is the kind of thing which is supposed to make that not happen.

Famously bereft of a written constitution, the closest single document along these lines which the UK had for a long time was ("the") Magna Carta, which basically exists because King John's lords were tired of King John directing the courts that King John personally owned to not hear cases against himself.

But if your point is that some constitutions may as well be toilet paper for how much the people with power care about their contents, then I agree.


Famously, the toilet paper known as the US Constitution has prevented any violations of rights recently, like the brown skinned people getting brought to concentration camps, or your dog getting shot because you used free speech.

And which one are the courts enforcing at the moment in the US? Pretti? Good?

> the US has some damn good rights for its citizens

Unless you turn up to a protest against the ICEtapo, with a holstered gun. Then you can be murdered and called a domestic terrorist.

As a brown visitor to the US.... Well I won't be one. They can ask for access to my entire digital life without the slightest suspicion of any crimes.


> so obviously incorrect and misanthropic that it can be dismissed out of hand

To be fair, that's the best thought terminating cliché, which saves you having to explain what you mean by consciousness.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: