IMO this would have been the perfect way to ensure the feature won't be useful for anyone. You need buy-in from both developers and users for something like this. Developing one alternate color scheme that everyone supports is a thousand times easier to justify than developing n alternate color schemes that most people don't care about.
And by naming the function `light-dark()`, they explicitly left the door open to introduce something like you suggest in the future. Had they already named the function something more generic, it would limit the flexibility of any future API!
Which is why I in a early comment said that it should be mandated to be protocol agnostic that every store implements. Kinda of USB for stores (btw, this could also be used in mobile stores as bonus points)
The reason is we already do, humans like to get hung up about social constructs, we do it all the time, just like we’re doing now talking about social constructs. Talking about social constructs is itself a social construct. So no, I can’t without reference to social constructs and I don’t need to, I’m not the one arguing that social constructs are somehow not worthy of getting hung up about, my point was the opposite, we do so all the time and only for some social constructs do some people feel the need to say that we shouldn’t engage about it because it’s a social construct, even while they are engaging in a social construct (conversation) in order to do so.
It absolutely is, you're just clueless about pragmatics. There's a whole branch of linguistics centered around the idea of conversations as a means of human communication and it is decidedly a social science. Maybe don't assume you know what you're talking about and form impressions about people while missing basic ideas yourself. I also distinctly get the impression of you being a pseudo-intellectual given you use vague terms without clarifying your own idea of them. How about you define "what people mean"? Sounds very similar to Trumpian "people are saying" imo.
In that case, please help me understand your initial objection:
>> gender is very clearly a social construct and we shouldn't get hung up on colors or names
> Why? Is there some reason we shouldn't get "hung up" about social constructs? Can you argue a reason for this without reference to other social constructs?
How does this question relate to the initial quote? You seem to interpret "we shouldn't get hung up" in some way I don't understand, e.g. as "we should get rid of all social constructs", when it obviously doesn't imply that? Still, why would you ask for something you define to be impossible, without sharing that definition?
You could just voice your critique from the start, and then others could argue with your actual position and interpretation.
How do you define "genuine demand" for a process that can scale pretty much infinitely, albeit with diminishing returns? Since the RAM contracts are sized based on future projections, chances are good they are buying more than they'll actually need.
And they're already cornering the market! If memory prices hadn't quadrupled, I bet you'd see lots more commercial activity working on local models. OpenAI is actively preventing this entire market segment from growing, AND they're hurting tons of tech-dependent markets at the same time. It's no coincidence that this allows them to ask for higher prices.
I'd argue that in this case two wrongs literally do make a right, because AFAIK game theory proves tit-for-tat to be the most effective strategy in a two-player prisoner's dilemma (which this boils down to). Since the few instances able to prevent such voter repression had already proven their defection to the side trying to repress voters, Newsom's approach seems to objectively be the best one to defend democracy.
If this comes to pass, it will destroy one of my favorite aspects of gaming: talking about shared experiences. If my gaming experience is randomly generated and yours is too, there's almost nothing we share.
reply