l'empathie mécanique @dpwiz@qoto.org

@tdback I hope you have an option to exclude certain paths...

@iron_bug sorry, I'm not sure I'm getting what's exactly the problem here with nginx and regexps. Can you post a brief example?..

I hosted and proxied both ways quite a few sites with nginx, but can't figure out how it relates to name records.

@iron_bug @NGIZero IDK, it looks reasonable enough while staying generic enough to accomodate future usage.

It is more close to http://www.somehash.onion URIs than to ordinary DNS zones. Browsers work with GNS zTLDs just as fine.
The idea is very similar here - rely on public key cryptography directly instead of trust-based registries and certificate roots.

@iron_bug @NGIZero what did you read to come to such conclusion?

@Sherifazuhur Um, what censoring? I never asked you to stop posting anything anywhere. I've asked you as an expert on the matter as you seem to promote it and explicitly told you know everything about it.

@sergeyb another fun one https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/coniccoloringbook/conic-sections-and-celestial-mechanics-coloring-book/posts/2828043

@jwz wouldn't that overload server' block lists for no good reason?

@Sherifazuhur look, I don't want to contest IDF manufacturing evidence, they have the incentives. What I don't get is why e.g. "quds network' you've boosted decided to spread fakes that are already debunked. They should have plenty of authentic material, why plaster it with lies?

@Sherifazuhur @palestine @israel How do you know the videos of explosions are fake, but videos of.. well.. other explosions aren't?

@Sherifazuhur @palestine @israel It is possible to make a video of anybody saying (and soon, doing) anything for some small bucks.

And pro-palestinian sources are notorious for faking stuff. I don't know why, but the amount of manipulated, generated and otherwise misleading material is through the roof. It's barely possible to believe anything anymore. Maybe you can tell me why they decided to flush their credibility down the drain? Because I don't understand. This psyops doctrine worked fine before pervasive surveillance and global OSINT communities, but shouldn't they stick to hard facts now?

Meanwhile, estradiol-powered von-neuman ~~catgirls~~ probes

https://x.com/anderssandberg/status/1754613931312603406

@Sherifazuhur @palestine @israel While such videos are reprehensible (if true), the real reason for destruction is that such objects host military infrastructure. Rocket launchers, ammo, tunnels, you know the thing.

@boilingsteam on being right X% of the time when placing X% confidence

@boilingsteam > Since 2001, Hubbard Decision Research trained over 1,000 people across a variety of industries.
> Analyzing the data from these participants, Doug Hubbard reports that 80% of people achieve perfect calibration (on trivia questions) after just a few hours of training.

Wow. I wonder how long does that last

@boilingsteam Hm... I've heard most people can distinguish 2-3 steps between "don't know anything about that" and "willing to bet my ass on it" without training. And with more practice relatively easily add 2 steps more.
I recon discerning between 93 and 96 would be tough for even a practitioner of the art, but most pragmatic questions don't require more than baseline skill level.

One such tool is indeed calibration practice. You git gud at what you do. Posting (and even reading!) confidence-annotated predictions will make your spidey senses tingling for misplaced confidence.

Another powerful tool is hypothetical switch from the original prediction to an equivalent abstract lottery situation. I.e. "New steam deck will be released in the next year (66%)" → "spin the wheel to win with 66% chance (2:1 odds)". One can feel the difference with their guts.

@boilingsteam Yes, but the confidence is important too

One should be right exactly 75% of the time when placing 75% confidence. No more (underconfident), no less (overconfident).

There's a practical difference when ~~betting~~ acting on 80% predictions (fairly sure) vs 55% predictions (barely has any clues) vs 99% predictions (verified insider info?).

I'd even argue predictions without confidence are worse than nothing (i.e. misleading) as they silently substitute readers' subjective verisimilitude for authors' information.

@boilingsteam ... and this is why you should add confidence when predicting events with low base rates.
Those series of "fail" wouldn't look so bad when clearly marked with "10% likely".

@deadblackclover more like "in Lean" those days...

@grumpy_website web got this merged into the clownbutton

@amiloradovsky more discussion clubs in cafes, less hackerspaces