No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
There's no "simple fundamental flaw" in AI that people don't know about. It bothers me when people who have never thought about
xin their life think aboutxonce, make an obvious observation, and then go off acting like nobody else is smart enough to have made that observation. It's narcissism. It's annoying.Please prove me wrong though. I would love to see this grift come crashing down all because you saw something that nobody else saw.
You assume much, and are being an ass in my opinion. Believe it or not, science is not always well funded. If you happen to be curious and have the time, it is possible to explore scientifically or even casually within areas that are not well researched. It is possible to have logic skills even without credentials.
We are not in some final state of technology. Anyone saying such nonsense lacks fundamental logic skills.
I do not care about me. I do not have dogma. I'm not interested in recognition. I am willingly to explore in unique ways both artistically as a professional artist, and out of logical curiosity. I have the tools needed to check my results against a control using unrelated sources. The most recent paper on the subject is something I can recreate but explain far better than that paper.
I could not care less what you ultimately think of me, or anything I say. What I care about is that you're a decent digital neighbor. To be physically disabled in near total social isolation, and have a place like this as my main interaction with other humans, it is a mean prejudice to have some random digital neighbor make such unsolicited malevolent statements assuming my personal motivations without a shred of evidence or decency to engage in questioning. You know absolutely nothing about me, yet you presume a great deal, putting words to my emotions as if you own me.
The person was talking about how certain people annoy them, he may have implied it was you but if you don't think description matches say so and move on.
But if we're talking about being a good digital neighbor, you should try and see how your implication is annoying or offensive. There are issues with credentialism but it is not just some arbitrary aristocracy, people put in a lot of work to get there credentials and take pride in them. If you start saying all these experts don't know what they're talking about and I found out something they couldn't is dismissive of all the work those experts put into learning about there field. Like don't you think doctors get annoyed by all the homeopaths or anti vaxers who dismiss all there work because theyve done there own research?
some fields are obviously shit though, like podiatry.
modern shoes are why modern feet have so many problems, simple as
flat feet? that happens because of arch support. the foot arch forms from a series of muscles, muscles require use or they atrophy, they atrophy and your arch collapses.
the podiatry industry as a whole though...well, they make most of their $ now off selling expensive shoes and inserts... most doctors arent geniuses or even particularly inspired towards whatever field they're in, they were good at memorizing some out of date text books and figured the job paid good
Thalidomide, the Y2K bug and the Challenger disaster came to mind when I read the question. There's nothing to say the person who found the flaw isn't an expert, themselves.