It’s 4,096 paperclips on a ring, each bent in one of two ways to indicate either a 0 or a 1. Neither the 0s nor the 1s could hold paper together in their current shape.
You realize that while Quirrell points cannot be revoked if saved, but it is very easy to delete or ignore a negative point.
People who care about Clippy points won’t ignore it, and I won’t delete them (edit: “them” refers to the evidence of the Clippy points, not the people who care).
Also why would you punish people, because Quirrell happens to like what they wrote?
Will you also burn the books Quirrell happens to enjoy?
How can you burn a book? I’ll certainly reset any encoding of texts that User:Quirinus_Quirrell likes to the null state (if I can do so to all known instantiations), but you can’t “burn” data; you can only entropize certain instantiations of it, which vary in their source-recoverability (a kind of inferential distance).
You can punish Q.
You can punish someone who does business with Q knowing who he is.
You can punish someone who does business with Q not knowing who he is.
You can punish someone for being liked by Q
You can punish someone for having done something that Q liked.
You choose the last one. That does not even give the respective person the ability to deflect the praise they got, you just punish. (Or rather poke.) That is pretty low. And opens you up for stupid levels of manipulation.
My policy discourages others from doing things that User:Quirinus_Quirrell likes, as those things are likely to be hurtful to me. I believe the level of pseudo-punishment I mete out is proportional to the pseudo-crime, as they involve the same mode and magnitude.
It’s 4,096 paperclips on a ring, each bent in one of two ways to indicate either a 0 or a 1. Neither the 0s nor the 1s could hold paper together in their current shape.
You’re a bad human. I’m going to give a negative-Clippy-point to anyone you give Quirrell points to now.
I mean, once I get GnuPG to work.
You realize that while Quirrell points cannot be revoked if saved, but it is very easy to delete or ignore a negative point.
Also why would you punish people, because Quirrell happens to like what they wrote? Will you also burn the books Quirrell happens to enjoy?
People who care about Clippy points won’t ignore it, and I won’t delete them (edit: “them” refers to the evidence of the Clippy points, not the people who care).
Because User:Quirinus_Quirrell does very anti-clippy things.
How can you burn a book? I’ll certainly reset any encoding of texts that User:Quirinus_Quirrell likes to the null state (if I can do so to all known instantiations), but you can’t “burn” data; you can only entropize certain instantiations of it, which vary in their source-recoverability (a kind of inferential distance).
Clippy there are various levels of action here.
You can punish Q. You can punish someone who does business with Q knowing who he is. You can punish someone who does business with Q not knowing who he is. You can punish someone for being liked by Q You can punish someone for having done something that Q liked.
You choose the last one. That does not even give the respective person the ability to deflect the praise they got, you just punish. (Or rather poke.) That is pretty low. And opens you up for stupid levels of manipulation.
My policy discourages others from doing things that User:Quirinus_Quirrell likes, as those things are likely to be hurtful to me. I believe the level of pseudo-punishment I mete out is proportional to the pseudo-crime, as they involve the same mode and magnitude.
I infer, then, that “stored safely on a computer I control” means resting on top of the case?
Now that’s just mean.