I got permabanned from /r/askhistorians for posting a link to reveddit, a site where you could view deleted posts. I did that to inform people that they could use that site to see all the posts that the mods remove (in that subreddit they remove any post that does not provide references).

I thought that the worst case would be that my post would get deleted and I would get a warning. No, they just permabanned me.

I was mad so I appealed telling them that it’s wrong to permaban people for reasons like this. I understand permaban for offensive content. But I still don’t understand their action.

Discussing with them proved that while one of them one reasonable and understanding, the other was completely mad about my action and wanted me to be almost on my knees pleading to remove the permaban. Eventually they “did a vote” and I stayed permabanned. I tried again one year later to no avail - I figured, maybe one year later they would get over it. Nope.

I just stopped checking and recommending /r/askhistorians ever since.

Il casse les idées reçues de certains média comme quoi un jour l’IA pourra complètement remplacer l’être humain.

Il explique (grosso modo) que l’IA ne sera jamais meilleure que nous sur l’ensemble des domaines. Tu peux faire une IA spécialisée dans un domaine, et l’IA sera sûrement meilleure que toi (par exemple aux échecs). Si on était capable de produire une IA pour chaque domaine concevable - alors peut-être que l’IA nous dépasserait. Mais le nombre de domaines étant infini, ça ne sera jamais le cas.

Même dans les domaines spécialisés, l’IA est complètement inefficace en terme de ressources par rapport à un être humain. Les deux exemples majeurs qu’il donne pour illustrer ça :

• on a entrainé une IA pour reconnaitre des chats. Il a fallu l’entrainer sur 100000 images de chat, après quoi l’IA reconnaissait les chats à 98%. Un enfant de 2 ans serait capable de reconnaitre un chat après avoir vu seulement quelques images de chat, et à 100%.
• le data center qui a battu le champion de Go lors de la défaite historique contenait des milliers d’ordinateurs soit des centaines de kW de consommation. Le champion de Go, avec son cerveau qui consomme environ 20W, a réussi à battre cette IA.

La conclusion de sa vidéo c’est que l’IA c’est juste un outil. Un outil très puissant et qui sera certainement meilleur que nous dans certains domaines pour lesquels il a été conçu. Mais qu’il y aura toujours besoin d’un être humain pour le manier, et qu’on est à des années lumières de l’IA “Hollywoodienne” qui serait réellement intelligente.

I have! Many times. I am one of those who is not nostalgic with D1 simply because I did not finish it until late (the first time I seriously dived through it was 5 years ago).

Could you point out things that I said that are inaccurate or incorrect?

If you are interested I highly suggest DevilutionX, it’s a modern engine for Diablo 1 with lots of modern features (like alt highlighting) and modern windows compatibility

Good question, I think both games are masterpieces each in their own way.

I personally prefer D1 because it’s more focused on tactical gameplay than D2. If you play it right you can tackle the whole game without drinking a lot of potions. D1 rewards both the “skill” of the player aka how good they are at the game, and also the character progression in itself. However D1 lacks a good endgame (although some fellas did engage in PvP fights and PvP tournaments). But there are mods out there that expand the challenge in interesting ways.

D2 is more focused around build and playstyle variety, character progression and trading. It does have a bit of tactical gameplay but it’s mostly common sense.

I think D1 is more single-player oriented where D2 is more multi-player oriented. I enjoyed a lot D2:R when it came out so I do like D2 too! I only place it below D1 because of personal taste.

At least you are going to the dentist. My uncle was not brushing his teeth. And never to the dentist. Eventually they had to remove all of his teeth because it was all infected and it was too unbearable for him.

I had a depression period of my life where I was doing the worst possible treatment to my teeth - was eating a lot of sugar and would skip brushing here and there; also I was not brushing effectively. My teeth are not in very good condition right now. I wish I had kept a good mouth hygiene even when I was depressed.

Maybe in your country. Here in France AirBnB are both cheaper and the rooms are nicer than hotel. Some of them could be landlords and profit… but some others rent something that would not be fitting as a location (like a vacation flat or a subpart of a house) but is OK for staying just a couple of days.

So I disagree heavily with your generalisation

Be positive! If people find it fun it hurts no one

I am comparing a drug to a drug that’s the whole point. Phones are drugs. For adults and children alike.

The problem is not in the phone itself. It’s in the lack of doing things that kids should normally be doing at that age. They will play with their phone instead of playing physically (less tonus), sleeping (constant tiredness), talking with their parents (learning) or other kids (socializing).

I know kids like that in my family. You can tell from the dark lines under their eyes that they spend most of their day staring at a screen. And if you ask them to play outside they just don’t know what to do, they need access to a screen even with other kids. It’s really a scary sight. And its a drug yes

I’m all in to get programming classes where children learn to code on PCs. That’s a high pass for me. But AFAIK children aren’t doing programming on their phones.

In general i doubt using a phone at school is going to help them program or teach them about technology. They have plenty of time to explore phones on their own when they get home, especially now that kids don’t go much outside anymore. It’s not like a school ban would be cutting that away from them.

We can all agree that alcohol isn’t bad by itself and that we can learn to use it safely (don’t drink too much, knowing when we had enough etc…). And yet we keep away alcohol from children. Why? Because it is a well-known fact that children may not have the capability to limit themselves; they might very well become addicted and fall into it.

Why should it be any different for mobile phones? We know it can become an addiction. And we also know that children do not have the means to limit themselves because of their young age.

Deliberately letting a kid having a phone for an indefinite amount of time is being irresponsible. What would be responsible is only allowing to use the phone for a limited time.

Schools banning phone could be one way towards that. It would be a good way too because the kid would not be suffering from any social pressure from their peers as everyone would be concerned with the ban.