OK, religious ideas are kind of genetic via indoctrination. (Epigenetic? Heh.)
Meanwhile ideas can be "self-removing" due to being bad, but then you'd just say "that's a bad idea" not "that's self-removing", so genetic descent was implied.
I didn't say the Shakers had a bad idea, it just was an idea that led to them removing themselves from further existence that was not genetic. Whether that was a good or bad decision is an entirely separate judgement call.
How is that not a line of principle? Principle doesn't mean where we'd all agree, nor does it mean what we'd deem acceptable, it just means there is a line somewhere - and mass surveillance or fully autonomous AI in the kill chain is a very clear principle.
But to gp's point, that is a principle. Perhaps not yours, but they outlined their stance and stuck to it despite threats and consequences.
Contrast Sam's OpenAI announcement which was very carefully worded to appear to uphold the same principles, but is currently being rightfully disassembled as retaining various potential outs that would allow violating the signaled principles.
Honest and staunch about clearly stated principles is better than wiggly and dishonest about weasel-worded impressions of a principle.
And all of that is orthogonal to whether you (or anyone) agrees with a given principle or given revealed behavior.
You can spin up any idea and claim it increases brand loyalty, but you have to have actual evidence that that either happens or actually matters in some way, and in this case it probably doesn't and isn't worth the expense once the scale exceeds >1 employee spending more than a few minutes a day. If you've got the data to prove otherwise so that you can actually make someone money, go ahead and sell people on the idea.
I don't have to - it's called image branding and is a well-known and established marketing discipline. Not direct ROI like hard sell techniques, but it lands you with higher margins, lower customer acqusition costs, longer customer lifetime value, etc. Apple was a master at that, Nike, and in this particular example LEGO regularly responds to children mail, Nintendo built a whole business channel around it with Nintendo Power and I'm sure I could pull out many more examples. Not everything is a hard sell technique.
So according to you, we should all quit our jobs and go work for Lego, Nike, Apple and Nintendo because they have good PR with kids, while you ignore the fact that most of them use sweatshop labor in China, fuck the environment and sue honest people for bullshit IP reasons?
If the problem of society could be summed up in one bite, this would be it.
Obviously the concept is different from the execution, and you provided an idea on execution (which anyone can do) which would need to be actually, you know, proved out to help with any kind of brand loyalty. Just doing random things that sound good is not a great strategy.
CORS has nothing to do with (dis)allowing 'mutating requests from random origins' on the server unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean. The origin is a browser concept.
Not sure why you're being downvoted. CORS is only a browser concept. If you fire off requests from something that isn't a browser (e.g. curl or a python script or whatever) CORS won't do anything. Servers need to validate the origin of requests properly if that's a problem.
The feature that was called is usually bundled in with cors, even if it strictly speaking isn't.
Allowed origins (what was meant) just validates the Origin header to make sure the API is called from a specific domain, and declines the request if not in the list.
The only way around that is not to send the unsubscribe request via the browser or proxy through a server, because the browser will always append the origin header according to the domain the user is on. Which if configured correctly and not proxied, would end in a http forbidden.
Whereas CORS would not even send the request I believe (but haven't verified), because thats essentially a browser feature, not server.
There's no actual good evidence for being a Mossad operative and the agenda of trying desperately to link him to Mossad so strongly is such a transparent agenda it's almost funny.
In the world of B2B software many of the 'hard problems in custom software development' have not been solved by human coders either - it can be an extremely grim market for anyone who cares about software quality. I'm completely unconvinced that on average a vibe-coded app is worse than the typical B2B slop.
I still haven't quite understood how Anki can apparently be profitable when the web sync with Ankiweb apparently supports an unlimited amount of data (surely some people heavily abuse this - but one never hears about fair use being applied?). Even legit and honest use can mean massive collection sizes since you can have any rich media in an Anki collection.
A few things. Up until now Anki was not a business and was not meant to be profitable.
AnkiWeb also does not support an unlimited amount of data. It's evident that their storage requirements aren't infinite. They aggressively cull content. Not syncing for 6 months results in automatic deletion last I checked.
I would still expect ingress and egress costs to be significant - as well as storage for content that isn't culled. And while it was not 'meant to be profitable' my point is that it was profitable, apparently exclusively from revenue from the iOS app which I still find surprising that it would cover the Ankiweb costs.
https://www.supermemo.com/en/blog/supermemo-is-better-than-f... seems to suggest that yes, it is a major improvement over SM-2, and given how critical they are of FSRS I'm happy to believe them. SM-2 to my understanding is basically the simplest possible spaced repetition algorithm - I think something like 'double the review interval if easy, otherwise multiply by some difficulty factor to reduce this interval depending on which button was clicked'.
That said, even SM-2 is probably vastly superior to just not doing SRS at all.
What happened to the Shakers?
reply