I think you misunderstand that I’m talking exclusively about electoralism. It can be a useful tool, but it’s largely a scam.
I fully understand your concerns. But this is the reality and I know it sucks.
Can you please not just roll over and die. I’m begging for you to put up an ounce of resistance now before you need to put up a gallon later.
“THERE IS NO THIRD OPTION” because you accept the options that you are given and try to convince others that they are acceptable options. They are not, stop deluding yourself.
People are “just going to fold over” because you keep telling them to! Stop doing the fascist’s work, there are always other options but the fewer people who understand that means that more force per person is required to apply the needed pressure to make those options a reality.
You’re arguing from the premise that fascism is the only option and anything else is “fantasy”. Is that what you really believe?
I was promised riots and unrest when Roe V Wade was overturned and there was crickets instead. What are you going to do in November after the democrats get Trump elected? Do before to prevent that current inevitability?
What would you rather have?
A non-fascist option. Abortion access, housing, not the world’s highest incarceration rate (which Jim Crow Joe is directly, but not solely, responsible for.) etc.
You’re arguing from a false premise.
You mean far-right groups like Israeli officials = Zionists = genocidal terrorists?
Less than you would expect, this looks like it’s a good, balanced synopsis if you’re interested however you’re not wrong about it being a problem, and pointing out the PR/gaslighting that surrounds the issue.
Also it’s worth noting that SpaceX is using LOX-Kerosone because it’s “cheaper” than options which pollute much less (namely LH2-LOX) because the cost of the kerosene is “externalized” and you are correct that something like appropriate taxing could start to fix that issue and force them to make better decisions…
It’s fascinating comparing that result to general trends.
It’s not, the underlying data is still just as biased. Taking a bunch of white people and saying they are “ethnically ambiguous” is just statistical blackface.
No they don’t… You do and the media is engaged in a terrifying amount of manufactured consent, but the raw data from those same polls does not agree with that claim.
Ignoring the sampling methods used, lack of transparency on filters and other methodology, clearly biased questions, etc. The latest CBS news poll on the topic lists:
52% believe less weapons and supplies should be sent to Israel.
76% believe more humanitarian aid should be sent to Israel.
57% believe more humanitarian aid should be sent to Gaza.
56% disapprove of how the situation with Russia and Ukraine is being handled. (Though there isn’t much of a breakdown on the “how is it being mishandled…”)
A few things that should be explicitly pointed out as this is a bad poll, but it would appear the inherit bias is trying to agree with you, so the margin of error means the “true feelings of Americans” is even further in contradiction to your statement.
Note how Isreal is kept consistent without a single reference to Netanyahu/Israeli government compared to the constant switching back and forth between “Hamas” and “Palestinian people”
poll is 63% white, 62% of that group has “no degree”, 33% aged between 45-64 (amongst 4 categories).
So even when polling predominantly uneducated* white baby boomers who are the exact demographic that agrees the most with you, and doing the typical statistical magic the numbers still cannot be finagled in such a way as to make your statement true.
There’s a specific model for stable diffusion called riffusion that does an okay job. If you want to play with it I recommend downloading the automatic 1111 client and installing it from the “plugins” tab.
I’d recommend at least reading a Wikipedia article or 2 about the role of police in society and the state and coming back when you’re a little more informed on their role in society.
People are capable of more than 1 emotion at a time and that doesn’t make any other emotions invalid and it certainly doesn’t make any of the other possible ones people may feel or express “immoral”.
Yes, someone is dead. They were flawed, but so is everyone and their passing is a tragedy to those close to them. Sadness, mourning, and empathy for those who will be most affected by his passing is a valid emotion.
Ryan actively chose a profession dedicated to inflicting violence upon those around them including the deaths of many others. Relief that he is no longer able to cause harm is a valid emotion.
Ryan was unable to stop causing harm to others on his own volition. He likely did it with the best of intentions, but through a steady diet of misinformation and lies he was conned into acting as a violent enforcer of capital. Frustration that this is what it took to prevent him from inflicting further harm is a valid emotion.
The empathy you are demanding with “it’s bad when people get killed” is the same moralistic argument that “it’s good when killing is avoided”. Celebration that Ryan will no longer be causing the deaths of others is a valid (and morally equivalent) emotion.
Etc.
In short: It’s a good platitude, but it’s a poor moralistic argument, and is a narrow-minded viewpoint. Lemmy isn’t the problem, your lack of empathy for those outside of Ryan’s direct social circle is.
The academic name for the field is quite literally “machine learning”.
You are incorrect that these systems are unable to create/be creative, you are correct that creativity != consciousness (which is an extremely poorly defined concept to begin with …) and you are partially correct about how the underlying statistical models work. What you’re missing is that by defining a probabilistic model to objects you can “think”/“be creative” because these models dont need to see a “blue hexagonal strawberry” in order to think about what that may mean and imagine what it looks like.
I would recommend this paper for further reading into the topic and would like to point out you are again correct that existing AI systems are far from human levels on the proposed challenges, but inarguably able to “think”, “learn” and “creatively” solve those proposed problems.
The person you’re responding to isn’t trying to pick a fight they’re trying to help show you that you have bought whole cloth into a logical fallacy and are being extremely defensive about it to your own detriment.
That’s nothing to be embarrassed about, the “LLMs can’t be creative because nothing is original, so everything is a derivative work” is a dedicated propaganda effort to further expand copyright and capital consolidation.
“Why don’t you want to compromise with the leopards? They don’t want to kill you, just let them lick your nose a bit. That would be cute, right!?”