> If you think about it, it is weird that they even make articles out of statements that only "may" be true.

I thought about it. And it's very stupid to imagine uncertainty should be off limits. I hope that isn't what you meant.

I'm saying the incentive to publish articles that make strong claims with little evidence may be problematic.

"May is right in the headline" and "strong claim" don't go together.

I prefer error bars be worn on the sleeve, so I find "may" on display to be refreshing, not dismaying. YMMV

What's your alternate explanation to explain the absence of fentanyl in Italy, and how can my country get so weirdly randomly lucky?

Errors are fine when they are due to a random process. When the press pick up claims because they are likely to attract readers it's a different story. Errors are not random, they are the result of an optimization process and are very unlikely to happen on the other side of the claim. (For example consider the overwhelming number of articles that have been published with the title "Scientist may have found life on mars" over the past 30 years)

For this reason, "may" in a press article, doesn't carry the same meaning regarding uncertainty than "may" in common language. Which is why I disagree with your comment:

> I've never understood the value of simply repeating the definition of uncertainty words like "may."

In the contrary, I think it is worth reminding people what may actually means here.

Now, I agree with what you and others have said about the usefulness of discussing uncertain claims, and I don't think there is a real disagreement here.

Why are people so greedy? Why can't they wait to be given something, or remain content without, rather than take from others by force? I'm genuinely curious too.

Animalistic survival desires under conditions of engineered scarcity and reduced awareness. Compounded with powerful need for consistency - to keep everything this way.

Anyone with a decent amount of social power is aware and skilled at maintaining these conditions whether consciously or not.

The praxes are non-trivial: awareness, bravery, flexibility, and seflessness.

This could be summarized as "unhealthy competition."

That's no moon.

Or search engine ads, natch. My eyes rolled out of my head.

Thanks! I had no idea they added a paid option.

This is a brilliant browser for iOS/Linux usage, and now its UI is minimal, and its settings are filled only with stuff for my benefit. It feels like the early 2000s again! This should be much more ballyhooed.

> Chronic depression doesn't usually have a "cause"

Is that true or your guess?

I have first hand experience. Also "depression" is different from "chronic depression". You can experience the former as the direct result of some cause.

Come on. Don’t roll into a conversation playing armchair expert criticizing others’ contributions when you’ve got nothing of substance to say.

You’re as capable of typing “causes of chronic depression” into a search bar as anyone else. The fact that you don’t do that indicates you don’t want to contribute. You just want to be argumentative.

Riveting discussion. How about you reply with something of substance instead of just presumptuous and pedantic quips.

It would be less misleading to also include:

> Moreover, the use of AI for purposes other than co-authoring code, tickets, emails, and so on, is discouraged but not prohibited. If you use LLMs privately to review your work, to ask questions of, to perform security analysis, and so on, and then write original code to push to SourceHut, your use-case is aligned with our policy.

I think this is more of a nitpick than anything. SourceHut is a code forge, code forges are where you store your code (and tickets). The policy going forward is a ban on using LLMs to write code (and tickets). The use cases listed there (reviewing work, asking questions, etc) are minority use cases and mostly would be unenforceable even if included in the policy.

It's not a nitpuck to me: reading the comment I replied to, I assumed I needed to cancel my Sourcehut subscription. In fact, I don't. That's a lot of information to've left out of so many pull quotes.

Your worry was that if you used AI for things other than generating code/tickets/communication/assets, that you couldn't use sourceforge?

Correct. This is specifically what covered my uses of the service:

> to review your work, to ask questions of, to perform security analysis

Not really: as far as we know, you use it for nothing; the person you replied to gave examples.

> decided to make stalking DHH into a personality/lifestyle

> When wolves get out of control, you shoot them. When gypsies take over public spaces, you deport them.

An intellectually honest guy like you is probably so furious that DHH makes a personality out of stalking entire peoples. Pathetic++, right? :^:

So, a Linux distribution.

It's a bash script over a distribution.