UnbornTao

There is, once again, a conflation between listening and gullibility or agreement (or disagreement, for that matter). As usual, we tend to see listening as "saying yes" to things. Anything that takes the form of a straightforward position against a stance comes across as not having heard. Understandable, but wrong. And don't forget that the same position could be taken by the other party: "I'm the one not being listened to - don't be so closed-minded." Listening isn't incompatible with recognizing what something is - deluded, accurate, plainly false, biased, a manipulation, and so on - whatever purpose it may have had when it was invented. This is why questions are asked in the first place, especially basic, common-sense ones that people somehow tend to overlook. Educating people on this would easily take a good hundred hours of work. Why do cult dynamics always implicitly emphasize a certain kind of "open-mindedness"? You can begin to intuit what that's about. So yes, being critical and listening are not mutually exclusive; in fact, they complement each other. Without the former, what you may end up with is a kind of lightweight spiritualism, which is quite common. "The Earth is a rectangle."

Discussing listening while some kind of noise keeps making him pause, like on the other video. The guy knows what questions to ask.

So little commitment to your values.

I'm not familiar with most of those frameworks, to be clear. I taught myself basic CSS and HTML as a teenager and set up a tech site with a friend, but don't remember most of it at this point. If you're serious or genuinely curious about it, taking the tedious path is worthwhile - you can then understand how the wheel works and recreate it any way you want when it comes to CSS.

There were also some Chinese ones and whatnot. But the joke's on you, I'll be the robot wiping your ass.

I call that Tuesday.

Have you heard of our lord and savior Linus Torvalds?

God, the new web app.

I wish we could see some of the past Zen masters and observe how they might contradict our ideals. Words don't necessarily constitute understanding, even if they sound like the same things others say. And making certain impressions on people is relatively easy. Talk has always been cheap, particularly in spiritual pursuits. This is why I like guys like Jiddu Krishnamurti. Among other things, he shattered people's assumptions about these matters. He simply appeared normal and didn't offer a fantasy (which is what most people are looking for). In other words, he was authentic. He also emphasized that intellectual understanding is rather superficial when it comes to existential matters.

It's either blueberries, or you haven't gone deep enough yet. Do you want to leave this here or move it somewhere else? Or perhaps add something else?

Yep. The allure of a convenient path is apparently too hard to resist. What you're describing seems to be happening, to some degree, with Windows PCs now. I'm not even sure Microsoft has beta testers for the OS - or even that they have many developers and coders these days. They just wing it and treat users like guinea pigs.

Anyone can be now! "Code a coffee ordering app now, make no mistakes."

@Joseph Maynor Give the Blowfish template a try: https://github.com/nunocoracao/blowfish. It's fun; needs Hugo, though.

Some of the robots I've seen can barely stand upright for more than a few minutes. Others are more impressive. Isn't this more of a hopeful dream or future possibility than a present reality? Again, not saying there can't be some truth to those claims.

We never got closure on who Google is, but solid video.

Yeah. Not making a choice is still a choice.

Just a joke. I agree with your take - for the most part.

I edited my response above to clarify my stance. It's very useful tech, but you need to assess the situation soberly. Without the hype, what is the tech actually doing? What can it do? I personally use it. I used GPT a while ago to create a JavaScript script to separate a bunch of content from a book into chapters, set up my Linux system with Nvidia drivers, troubleshoot technical problems, and other shenanigans. I like it, and I understand that this is just LLMs. But take a look at Windows, as a concrete example. Most of the AI implementation is poorly executed and, oftentimes, just unnecessary. Microsoft desperately wants to profit from its investment, pushing the tech down people's throats. At some point, you'll want to get an appliance, and you'll find it labeled 'AI Toaster'.

Smartphones will be able to do your laundry, cure cancer, and cook you an omelette - all at the same time! Eliminate the excessive hype, and that’d be fine by me. As said, the tech is very useful and has a lot of potential, but it's not a panacea or miracle cure, despite what some people seem to claim.

@Leo Gura It doesn't seem to bother you that much when people here share your terminology and are obviously just spouting beliefs - if or when those beliefs agree with you.

I was well aware of that. But please, stop it with that excuse already. It's not even accurate. And engage with the argument, if you don't want people to think they're expected to believe you.

A religion is already an acknowledgment of failure. It asks for faith. And it is taken as the truth.

If you say so. I'd add that's not a function of seeing or smelling. We already make tons of assessments in this domain every day. What are they based on? The main criterion is: do they work for our purposes? We trust a trained surgeon, not a random person on the street (unless he's a surgeon), when it comes to surgery and medicine. Why? Then again, the issue here is that in spiritual or philosophical pursuits, this stance is all the more difficult to discern. "Who can say what's true? Everyone's got their truth." It can turn into an unsubstantial impartiality pretty rapidly. Basic rigor and common sense is desperately needed.