- 0 Posts
- 209 Comments
EU’s stated reason for abstaining is
1, use of superlatives
2, bias in presentation, against UN charter
3, they’re against reparations
I dunno man, it really just smells like they don’t want to pay up for their crimes against humanity. When your first two points are nit picking and your last one is “and we were told we wouldn’t have to answer for shitty things before we made rules about it”, it’s kinda giving away why you’re against it.
Explain?
15·24 days agoYeah, unfortunately the marketing people have made the LLM synonymous to AI. It’s a damn shame.
13·1 month agoAttention economy, man. Being recognizable is an asset, this furthers recognizability for that piece of shit.
I’m on year 5 of mine. Literally no issues
101·2 months agoThis isn’t someone guessing, man. He’s citing research on the topic.
Essentially, these clouds are 50% opacity to visible light, but nearly 100% in infrared. So they block some incoming light, but reflect almost all infrared from the surface. It’s a net warming effect at these altitudes.
Yes, but the phenomenon occurs at specific altitudes, so you just fly slightly higher or lower.
No, you can fly to avoid the creation of contrails. Ironically, would actually be a boon for the environment, since contrail clouds are massive greenhouse generators https://youtube.com/shorts/qBPwloCdRKw
Dude, I told you I don’t understand how what you’ve written is different from what I’ve said, so maybe start there? I can see the literal words you wrote, thanks. I’m trying to get to the meaning you’re attempting to convey, dude.
Like are you saying “people shouldn’t have given their data to these companies”, then my entire argument until now applies. It’s not really an opt-out situation, unless you refuse to play ball with these companies.
Are you saying “companies shouldn’t have this data”? Like, fair, but I’m not certain how what you’re saying conveys this point.
What are attempting to say because I clearly don’t understand it with those words in that order. Give more context to what you mean, please. I genuinely want to understand but I can’t parse what you’re trying to say beyond what I parroted back at you. And it’s not some failure on your part, I am a certifiable idiot sometimes when it comes to this shit.
Which is why I don’t give anyone my phone number.
Happy for you, chief. I’m sure that makes it real useful to have, then, since no one knows it to call you.
Once again, that never happened, you just made it up, and I don’t appreciate it.
Cool, how am I supposed to read this, then?
I mean it’s a legit concern but, maybe don’t give them your data in the first place?
Does that not read “if they have your data, you’re the one who gave it to them”? Explain it to me, because I’m clearly not understanding
To not give them your data, you can’t interact in their ecosystems. Their ecosystems are the community writ large, so by voluntarily removing yourself from those ecosystems, you’re voluntarily removing yourself from the parts of society that they’ve squatted on. Ergo, removing yourself from society (with a sprinkle of hyperbole, since it was sarcasm)
Without you having signed up to Facebook, if anyone you know who has your phone number has signed up and shared your contact info, then they know your name, who you know, your phone number, which they can then use to associate you to any online interaction where you’ve also given your phone number. They have an idea of the demographics you belong to, political stance (not having a Facebook or Instagram gives them a lot of info for that), and a general vibe of who you are. Source: The exposure after the Cambridge Analytica Scandal
You pointing out that maybe the victims are to blame for their data being in the hands of megacorps surely must imply that you think personal responsibility is the only recourse we have for this. But maybe I read that wrong and you just had no further thoughts beyond what you literally wrote down. Victim blaming for the game of it.
Yeah, man. Why don’t you just voluntarily remove yourself from society at large so that they can’t own your data? /s
Meta has your data, even if you aren’t a part of their ecosystem. This is true of all the rest of them as well. You can’t “personal responsibility” your way out of this.
There is evidence that when you make an llm explain why it did something that it’s less likely to just make things up, but like all it does it make things up in a verifiable way, in that case. It’s a plagiarism machine, not a thinking machine.
Yeah, uh, don’t got a console so it will not be.
135·2 months agoConfused about what? It’s designed to be the same product, but without meat. And they’re always labeled as such. It’s not confusing, it’s meat companies wanting to fuck over their competition by banning the label
None of that shit has anything to do with running a country. That’s why you shouldn’t have been backing it.