I have heard that, however there is truth in the assertions. I know two people currently in psychiatric hospital, with one seeming to be relatively sane just now but trapped in there, and another whose mental health is being affected detrimentally by the hospital environment. I've no doubt the latter could have recovered last year but for the fact she is being kept in an environment where her only contact with the outside world or nature is at the behest of hospital staff (who vary a lot in terms of attitude and even fluency in English).
Scrabble is a competitive game, not a puzzle, and therefore subject to a different set of constraints. (Players in a competitive game are trying to win; a puzzle author, if they're any good at their job, is ultimately trying to lose.)
In particular, you have to consider the equilibrium. If you only allow a subset of words in Scrabble, this replaces the competitive advantage from knowing lots of words that no one uses in real life, with a competitive advantage from knowing the exact contours of the border between acceptable and unacceptable words. I would argue that this is even worse; at least if you learn lots of Scrabble words you're learning something about the real world.
By contrast, Wordle can self-impose whatever constraints they want on solutions, and people don't have to know what those constraints are in order to solve the puzzle. (It can help a little on the margin, which in a perfect world would not be the case, but it's much less of a problem for the puzzle-solving experience than the Scrabble equivalent would be.)
Ya that's a good point for competitive scrabble. However today I think a lot of people's main exposure to Scrabble comes from WordsWithFriends (and recently, the new NYT games version). In those games, there's no penalty for getting a wrong word, it just won't let you play it. In that context, I at least think it would be nice to have a setting with a more limited list... it could be like Chess timed variants.
It's obviously an impossible challenge to draw those contours in language. Wordle did pretty well though! And going the other direction, just allowing everything that could possibly a word, just starts getting ridiculous.
Even in casual Scrabble-like games, I expect using a restricted set of words would create a lot of "come on, that's totally a real word, why can't I use it" moments. Most people know at least a few uncommon words that most other people don't (because it's different words for each person).
The Wordle list of legal guesses is not substantially curated; AFAIK basically all five-letter words legal in Scrabble are on it (except on offensiveness grounds, which was a highly controversial decision). If this were not the case, I predict you'd get user dissatisfaction as per above. Wordle's list of possible answers is much more curated, but that's my point; it can err on the side of conservatism, because users won't notice if a word that they'd expect to be on there is missing, whereas they will notice if such a word is not allowed as a guess.
If this is right, then I'd consider it probably a good thing, as it'd serve as a wake-up call that could result in calls for more regulatory action and/or greater demand for safety, before anything really catastrophic happens. That said, there are lots of ways it could fail to work out that way.
(Note that I'm primarily talking about the "lots of people are running highly privileged agents that could be vulnerable to a mass prompt injection" angle, not the "human psychology is the exploit" thing, which I think is not a particularly novel feature of the present situation. Nor the "Reddit data implicitly teaches multi-agent collaboration" thing, which strikes me as a dubious claim.)
You mean the guy that has in his bio "YC and VC backed founder" and has made multiple posts in the last couple months dismissing different negative thoughts about AI? Yeah that guy probably doesn't have significant funds tied up in the success of AI.
I don’t, actually, unless you call index funds “tied up”.
To be honest, it’s really distasteful to make a high level comment about this article then have people rush to attack me personally. This is the mentality of a mob.
in this case a more appropriate term for the mob is "the people" because one defining dynamic of the rollout of this technology is that a minority of people seem to be extremely invested to shove it into the faces of a majority of people who don't want it, and then claim that they are visionaries and everyone else is 'the mob'.
Just like with Mark Zuckerberg's "Metaverse" we're now in a post-market vanity economy where not consumer demand but increasingly desperate founders, investors and gurus are trying to justify their valuations by doling out products for free and shoving their AI services into everything to justify the tens of billions they dumped into it
I'm sorry that some people's pension funds, startup funding and increasingly the entire American economy rests on this collective delusion but it's not really most people's problem
Courts will look at the level of systematic tolerance. If you have a history of vigorous enforcement, it will be harder to argue in the future that a borderline dilution should be allowed.
If you allow borderline dilution, the court is going to consider what you have let other people get away with in the past.
I would still be interested in a real case where a trademark owner ignored a borderline case and this later resulted in an adverse ruling when a more concrete interest was at stake.
Amstar Corp. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252 (5th Cir. 1980) The record showed a history of extensive third‑party “Domino” uses (including other food and grocery products). That crowded field made Amstar’s DOMINO relatively weak outside sugar, and Domino’s Pizza prevailed. Link:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/615...
"The new CSS env(preferred-text-scale) variable provides a mechanism for authors to respect the user’s text scale setting that they’ve set either in their operating system or web browser settings. Authors can use it to scale the font-size and alter the layout accordingly.
Note: See the env(preferred-text-scale) Explainer [2] for a comparison of the various ways users can scale content and examples of how to use the environment variable.
However, if authors have already used font-relative units like rem and em to conform to the Resize Text guideline, the browser could automatically incorporate the OS-level text scale setting into those font-relative units. This would allow authors to avoid having to determine the precise elements to apply the env() variable to.
We propose a new HTML meta tag that tells the user agent to apply the scaling factor from env(preferred-text-scale) to the entire page. We expect it will become best practice for authors to use this meta tag, just as they would use the viewport meta tag. The environment variable would be reserved for atypical use cases."
There's no need for a text-scale CSS property because font-size already exists. The latter explainer [2] suggests that developers use font-size: calc(100% * env(preferred-text-scale)) to get the desired effect, if they are doing this in CSS rather than with just the meta tag.
Actually I don't think the explainer gets into the full story. The reality is it's not CSS's problem. It's the browsers that have historically made text scaling weird on each platform that they support.
And now just like with the viewport meta tag, we need a meta tag to say, 'Stop doing that please. Make the default font size in my CSS work the way it always should have'.
The other reason why the flag can't be in CSS is because it needs to make em and rem units in media queries get affected by the user's text scale. See the explainer for more info on that.
I'm not sure I would characterize this as "Ebert recanted" so much as "Ebert decided it was a bad idea to wade into this debate".
If you want to read a thoughtful, non-snobbery-based argument that video games aren't art, I recommend the GDC talk "An Apology for Roger Ebert" by Brian Moriarty (who designed a number of classic adventure games circa the late 1980s, and now teaches video game design at my alma mater, where I had the good fortune to hear him give a version of this talk).
I do think they would likely have used more forceful rhetoric if they were dealing with a more normal administration. The current one is atypically spite-driven and prone to retaliate against critics, so they probably figured that saying anything insufficiently conciliatory-sounding would likely be counterproductive.
Even if that is the instinct, this is a mistaken way to deal with narcissistic bullying.
It’s writing the piece in the first place rather than what you put in it that raises the ire. There’s no way to compromise or mollify the wording in a way that makes them give you like, half the punishment.
What’s more, the attempt to mollify signals weakness that just invites them to feel even more vindictive. Being more forthright and decisive is what earns their grudging respect. China understood this, Zohran Mandani understood this. Meanwhile, Europe and Democratic leadership, universities and large law firms refuse to understand this.
reply