Kerfuffle

It’s not an improvement to have sauce dripping down the handle of your spoon and onto your saucepan handle, or to make yet another hazard over the stove by wedging a spoon precariously into a handle hole. That’s my point.

I started my comment with "The solution may be stupid but". That being the case, how could you possibly interpret it as me directly arguing for that particular solution being good?

I find it stunning that you are too lazy to rinse an extra plate, but weirdly insistent on the least logical, awkward, and ridiculous way to avoid it.

I find it stunning you are weirdly insistent on interpreting what I said in the absolutely least charitable way possible even though there's no reason to do so and I literally started my comment acknowledging that solution may be "stupid".

Actually, it seems like people on Lemmy are even worse about this than reddit which takes some doing. At least don't interpret stuff in ways that contradict what the person literally said a single post ago. Sometimes it's a little ambiguous, but not in this case.

Of course you did. It’s right there. You balked at the idea of Germany and Japan enjoying “amazing futuristic technology” compared to the US.

You have a very active imagination.

You also 100% missed the point I was making, which is that western countries like the US didn't lose the benefit of that technology. Nothing I said had anything to do with 1) saying other countries have relatively less technology or 2) being opposed to other countries having equivalent technology. Is it possible I have some kind of opinion on that? Maybe, but I didn't share it. If you want to know what I think about something, you could try asking me instead of just fabricating an alternate reality out of the ether.

With some exceptions (like trade embargoes, military secrets) if you can pay for it, you can get your hands on any technology that exists in the world.

They manufacture it and sell it to us.

So then we actually do "benefit from it", right? If we actually wanted to assemble the batteries, place thousands of components on circuit boards, whatever, we could.

So, it’s not in the stone age, because it’s paying out the ears for it while other countries profit heavily.

If it's so disadvantageous, why don't you start a company to manufacture solar panels or whatever in the US and become super rich? Why doesn't insert random rich person do so if it's so obvious? The answer is because it's probably not so obvious: lots of regulations, expensive labor, etc.

Why don’t you look into solar panels for a great example. Who’s making and selling them? Hm? Hint: it’s mostly not the US.

So somewhere else is doing the dirty, laborious part and we're getting the benefit?

The other person said "and not benefit from it". That's what I responding to. Just to be clear, I'm not saying that kind of outsourcing to places with exploitative treatment and lax environmental regulations is a good thing in general.

if you think life in the US is “futuristic” compared to Germany and Japan

I didn't say anything remotely like that.

Quick, let’s sell this US funded tech to the Chinese or Japanese or Germans and not actually benefit from home grown research. This has happened so many times over the decades it’s disgusting.

If that's true, why aren't the Chinese, Japanese and Germans running around with amazing futuristic technology while "we're" over here still stuck in the stone age?

I really haven't had an issue with them. I've been stung a few times, but usually I know what I did wrong. Once or twice my dogs made them mad and they ended up going for me.

I used to have this storage shed that was full of wasp nests. I don't mean just a few small nests, the wall was literally covered with wasps. I could go in there to fetch something and as long as I moved slowly they didn't seem to care. (Though I did try to avoid the day time and visit them when it was pretty cool and they were torpid.) Never even had a close call with those wasps.

Just use the dish you’re going to eat from if you’re really that lazy. This isn’t rocket science.

You're assuming the spoon has something I'd want to mix with the main dish on it, that I'm going to eat the food I'm cooking immediately, etc.

This only seems like a problem if you’ve never encountered an actual problem.

Little annoyances add up and small improvements to one's approach to dealing with things can add up as well. You know what makes those "actual problems" worse? Having to deal with a bunch of minor irritations at the same time.

Kind of weird that you seem to think it's ridiculous to want to improve anything that isn't a matter of life and death and earthshaking consequence.

The solution may be stupid but it is an actual problem. Do I really want to make an extra dish to clean just to have a place to put the spoon? That's annoying.

I don’t know if nostupidquestions would’ve accepted the question (they tend to reject questions aimed at viewer experience)

Some might take the fact that it's too stupid for nostupidquestions as a sign. :)

Humorous hyperbole or not, it's still an unanswerable question. How can you interpret it? "Which do you personally prefer?" - who really cares whether some random person prefers chocolate over vanilla and if you want to know what's common it's easy to find surveys. "If you prefer one, why?" - uhh, "it tastes better to me". What else can one really say?

At least something like "If you had to prove chocolate is better than vanilla or vanilla is better than chocolate, is there a food or recipe you'd use?" I didn't take the time to make it sound like a decent title, but at least that general approach might encourage interesting discussion, sharing foods people not have been aware of already, recipes, etc. There's nowhere really to go with this post though.

I don’t know why this was downvoted so much.

It's a silly question that's impossible to answer. For subjective preferences like flavors, none are "objectively better". They also could have posted this in "no stupid questions" which at least invites questions that are apparently dumb, but they didn't.

I didn't downvote it personally, but why it got downvoted certainly isn't a mystery.

also activity like making fake sites to steal credentials, send out phishing emails/texts

It's pretty common for that sort of activity to use stuff like botnets or compromised servers. In other words, the actual owner isn't aware of what their resources are being used for: they got hijacked. There's lots of stuff on the internet with very lax security so unfortunately it's not really hard to do.

which would mean going forward no more breaking changes when new formats are worked on

I definitely wouldn't count on that.

But it does make it much easier to do some changes, like adding/changing model specific fields which previously would have required a format change. Stuff like changing or dropping support for existing quantizations would also break stuff independent of the model format itself.