I could honestly see the appeal of a way for the toilet to analyze your poop and tell you that you should be eating more fiber or that you need to see a doctor because it’s seen X, Y, and Z symptoms. It’s like the joke about German toilets being so you can monitor your health, but with much less of the nastiness.
Of course, we can’t have nice things and you’ll just get ads for Metamucil or the colorectal-cancer-from microplastics law firms in the style of mesothelioma lawyers.
Very true. It’s upsetting on Netflix or prime to search for a movie and it autocompletes but then they just show you “I know you really want to see X, but how about Y instead”?
Again, I personally don’t view these things as mutually exclusive. It’s a tech company and a car company. What’s so crazy about that? Apple is a phone manufacturing company and a software company. Amazon is a cloud provider, a video streaming company, a shipping and logistics company, and an online storefront. Companies can be more than one thing.
Also “subset” means a member of. If X is a subset of Y, then X is a member of Y. It would not be incorrect to say, “the list of Y includes X”
The devs determine they need to sell X copies at Y$/copy, they then calculate what Valve’s cut will be and add it over Y$
Example: You think you’ll sell a million copy and want to make 10 millions to recoup your cost and make a profit so you need 10$ per. But the truth is that after everyone else gets their cut (publisher, distributor, taxes…) you’re left with about 50% of the sale price going to you, that means your need to sell the game for 20$ to end up with 10$/copy going to you. If everyone else had lower margins and you got 70% of the sale price ending up in your pocket you would need to sell your game for 14.30$ a copy to end up with 10$ going to you. Everyone else in this example are the people who aren’t part of the actual development cost, their margins are huge compared to the amount of work they accomplish, the proof of that is that they’re making billions in profit, profit is revenue - cost, their cost is basically nothing, hosting content and distributing it costs peanuts these days and prices are only going down, so their profit is actually increasing passively over time. Because the devs need to set the price at 20$ instead of 14.30$ you’re paying 5.70$ more for the same product and that 5.70$ is all going into the pockets of people that had nothing to do with actually creating the product you’re purchasing.
In the political side for nonprofits, there are clear rules of what you can do or not do. So a nonprofit with the goal of getting people to vote should not lean left or right.
In the one I volunteered at a decade ago for gay rights, each volunteer had to sign that they are simply pushing the issue forward, not promoting a particular politician or party. It was pretty freaking clear what party we were aligned with, but we couldn’t actively tell people to go vote for X or Y, only that here’s what party X has shared about the issue, while party Y hasn’t given us any comment about it.
Because not only is it emotive (and they love emotive language to get you to click), it’s also just an objectively fantastic word for a headline in that it’s very concise and helps headlines fit on a single line.
Headline space is limited, so it’s easier to go with “X slams Y over Z” as opposed to “X criticises Y over Z” or “X denounces Y over Z” or “X castigates Y over Z”
It’s annoying how much it’s seen. But I get why they do it.
“X criticises Y over Z” or “X denounces Y over Z” or “X castigates Y over Z”
All of these are better. They’re honest about what’s happening and most people understand them. “Slams” implies some level of violence or at least force. Not only isn’t that dishonest most of the time, it could devalue the word to that point that it just simply has no meaning. I refuse to internalize it as best as I can, but if they had their way I would think “slam” means a brutal vitriolic takedown. Instead I know it normally means “mildly comments on” these days.
I thought it’s clear when we ask a question that can’t actually be answered
Except… it can, because I did? We’re talking about a common industry practice here, not some enigmatic unsolvable mystery of the universe.
Of course it does.
No.
That’s 100% the only reason why they use it this way.
Oh is it? Do you have an assertion for that? You really think that when they say “X slams Y” they’re trying to make you think there’s a physical altercation going on?
Notice how that’s explicit in every definition but the last (the newer, still less-common usage I’m taking issue with):
You’ll notice I said in the context of headlines. Of course in other contexts slam can mean violence. But because we’re specifically talking about headlines here, not, say, discussing a WWE performance, it’s very obvious what “slams” means.
You’re really going into the weeds here. You asked why they use “slams” in headlines so often, and I gave you an answer. I don’t see why you feel the need to argue about it so much.
They use it because people understand what it means, it’s emotive, and it’s very concise compared to “criticises”, “chastises”, “denounces”, “castigates”, or “attacks”
Actually, based on your previous argument, you’d probably hate it if they said “attacks” too, as you could also interpret it as violence.
The statue commemorating Anne Frank, one of the most famous victims of the Holocaust, was defaced with pro-Palestinian graffiti for the second time on Sunday....
No we know it wasn’t because there’s nothing anti semitic on it, nothing. Your implying something that doesn’t exist. Yes, the news makes money by sparking culture was bullshit and making mountains of molehills. Find me something the news doesn’t make seem like the end of the goddamn world and I’ll be more surprised.
Goddamn did you look at the picture? It’s describing the graffiti.
Ed: and I quote
According to images published on X, the base of the statue was spray-painted with the slogan “Free Gaza” while the girl’s hands were painted with the same red color, AFP reported.
“It looks like x or it looks like y”, you clearly haven’t even seen the graffiti but you’re off arguing about it.
Just a side note - I would caution about directing non-Black folks to spaces like # BlackMastodon and @ blackfedi, just because those spaces might not be intentioned for non-Black people to look at, directing us there might be encouraging our participation in spaces where it’s not necessarily invited or wanted, etc. Great spaces to direct Black folks to if they’re looking to build a community for themselves on fedi, but I would just say it’s best for non-Black people to not look/participate unless the space is specifically inviting that.
The other thing about the “just listen more to more Black people” discourse is that while it may fix representational issues of whom you’re choosing to listen to, it won’t help if there’s no intention to work on racial biases or challenge one’s own racist behaviors - so I would even implore that type of introspective work. Connected to that would be, even if a white person starts doing these things and working on this practice, that work of interrogating your own biases/behaviors never stops. I feel that white people (especially on fedi) often need reminding that just because you’re doing X, Y, Z, etc. doesn’t mean that you’re done working on your own racism or that your reasons for doing X, Y, Z, etc. are all genuine.
You might also want to mention how having some marginalized identity even as a white person doesn’t excuse you from doing this work - there’s a lot of harm done on fedi by people who use their own oppressed identities as a way to avert accountability for being racist. In your piece, you already mentioned that supporting Black people and fighting anti-Blackness means supporting all Black people - you could make that understanding of how anti-Blackness is interconnected/intertwined with other oppressions more apparent by appealing to white people who might consider themselves staunch advocates for other communities but refuse to confront racism.
This is kind of a mess of different comments but those are just my raw thoughts after reading what you wrote.
I don’t think it matters either way. Until we’re told at the very least what the tests were or who administered them, any testing is irrelevant. They don’t even need to say what the results were. All they have to say is, “we did X test on them and Y doctor administered it and Z lab did the analysis.”
Did they test them? Who knows? Who cares until they give us the details?
amedia.concealedcarry.com/…/atf-braces.jpeg these are just some of the gun laws you can accidentally break… And some of those “legal” options have been flip-flopped in recent years based on meandering policy decisions by the ATF.
It’s very rare that people who wish that “guns were regulated like x” or “can’t believe that guns are less regulated than y” have very little knowledge of what gun laws actually are like at the federal level, much less the archipelago of state laws.
At least one X is required because it contains instructions to make very crucial stuff, while Y contains a bunch of switches turning things on and off.
I live in Germany, which by some accounts, is the third largest economy, and we have literally no answer for what is next, economically. Neither in the public nor private sectors. Nobody is investing, nobody is building new things, nobody even knows what to do next. But the story is the same throughout Europe as far as I can...
Countries go through rises and falls. From an American perspective, I still think of Germany as one of the best European economies. German products are still considered top quality and Germany itself seems a place people would like to be for a number of reasons. Maybe you are too familiar with Germany’s current issues to see it fairly compared to other countries.
You probably know more European history than I do, but look at England’s global dominance a century ago compared to now, or further back at countries like Belgium or the Netherlands. It’s all a dice game at any time which country is in the right position at the right time.
The US is still riding the wave of economic benefit of being the major player that didn’t have its infrastructure ravaged by 2 world wars. We were able to sell everything to everyone after that, and it left us in a great position to be able to take advantage of the computer age.
It will probably be an energy (nuclear/fusion/battery) or space technology breakthrough that will bring the next huge economic breakthrough for whomever comes up with the answer to those problems. I don’t see anything putting Germany in a bad position for that kind of thing. The catch that I’ll say exists now that didn’t before is our ability to travel and communicate so much more efficiently than ever is there are far fewer sole American, sole German, etc companies that the money from a boom will probably be spread around more than in the past, so economic waves may be smaller, yet more frequent than huge booms and busts in the past.
As far as China goes, the impression I’m able to form is they are able to do what they do by doing what many countries would consider to be cooking their books. They seem to have much greater control over their economy and businesses themselves and their currency to push their agenda, to good and not so good ends. I don’t invest in China due to what I see as a lack of real transparency.
At the end of the day, it all comes down to luck though. Things like climate change, immigration, and wars are always going to interfere with the plans of the greatest leaders, accidental discoveries will be made, and multitudes of other factors will pick our future winners and losers. It’s much easier to look back and say, it’s obvious we should have done X back then than it is to look forward and correctly say we need to do Y now.
Germany will survive, as it will have to change with the times sooner or later. You’ll form trade and political alliances with different players as your economy changes. Young people will learn different careers as we did to join the age of technology and how our grandparents handled mechanized agriculture, airplanes, and automobiles. This area in time will likely be a blip in history, it’s just more important feeling because it’s our here and now. I don’t think you’d feel Germany is not at least in the top half of European nations, so that still puts you ahead of the majority. We’re all struggling now, but we’ll still wake up tomorrow and figure things out.
I hope that gives you a more comfortable take on things from an outsider with a passing interest in world economics.
I think there is potential for using AI as a knowledge base. If it saves me hours of having to scour the internet for answers on how to do certain things, I could see a lot of value in that.
The problem is that generative AI can’t determine fact from fiction, even though it has enough information to do so. For instance, I’ll ask Chat GPT how to do something and it will very confidently spit out a wrong answer 9/10 times. If I tell it that that approach didn’t work, it will respond with “Sorry about that. You can’t do [x] with [y] because [z] reasons.” The reasons are often correct but ChatGPT isn’t “intelligent” enough to ascertain that an approach will fail based on data that it already has before suggesting it.
It will then proceed to suggest a variation of the same failed approach several more times. Every once in a while it will eventually pivot towards a workable suggestion.
So basically, this generation of AI is just Cliff Clavin from Cheers. Able to to sting together coherent sentences of mostly bullshit.
So I used to think that, but I gave it a try as I’m a software dev. I personally didn’t find it that useful, as in I wouldn’t pay for it.
Usually when I want to get started, I just look up a basic guide and just copy their entire example to get started. You could do that with chatGPT too but what if it gave you wrong answers?
I also asked it more specific questions about how to do X in tool Y. Something I couldn’t quickly google. Well it didn’t give me a correct answer. Mostly because that question was rather niche.
So my conclusion was that, it may help people that don’t know how to google or are learning a very well know tool/language with lots of good docs, but for those who already know how to use the industry tools, it basically was an expensive hint machine.
In all fairness, I’ll probably use it here and there, but I wouldn’t pay for it. Also, note my example was chatGPT specific. I’ve heard some companies might use it to make their docs more searchable which imo might be the first good use case (once it happens lol).
You can indeed prove certain properties on these models.
Okay, how does the model prove the assassination attempt happened? Because that is what OP was talking about.
It was clear from the context that OP was saying “It is impossible to mathematically determine if something [historical] is correct.” They omitted one word and instead of using context clues you went into a long unnecessary post on how we prove even numbers are divisible by 2. If you tried Iron Manning their post instead of trying to show off with an “Um Actually…” You wouldn’t be getting lost in the replies as we’d be staying on the original topic.
The main point though is that everyone including OP is trying to discredit AI by bringing up things it was never supposed to be good at.
We’re missing the context again. It’s not people trying to discredit AI. People are trying to discredit companies insisting on using AI for things it is bad at.
It sounds like you actually agree with OP: AI should not be used for this purpose. Instead of saying “I agree, this is a bad use of AI, it should only be used for X, Y, and Z” you felt the need to White Knight for AI. The problem right now isn’t AI being attacked, it’s companies treating AI like a miracle that can do everything.
Got it, thanks for clarifying. I think both lines of reasoning have problems though:
X is ok because it’s cultural and we’ve been doing X for a long time.
Y is ok because we would be economically ruined if we didn’t do Y.
I can think of many things to fill in for X and Y that satisfy the necessary conditions, but still aren’t ok. I do, however, think this line of reasoning is valid:
Z is ok because we would literally starve if we didn’t do Z.
I don’t think any vegan would take issue with #3, since in that case Z is necessary, and vegans are only concerned with unnecessary harm.
So from what you’re saying, it seems like not only is killing whales unnecessary for the Faroer anymore, but the document you linked seems to imply that it’s actively detrimental to their health.
Also this response doesn’t really engage with what I said before about the lines of reasoning being flawed. You’re painting a picture of how whaling has been an integral part of their cultural history, and that’s interesting information, but it doesn’t really relate to whether it’s the right thing to do.
So again, it’s an argument of the form “X is ok because it’s cultural and we’ve been doing X for a long time,” which I don’t think is very persuasive.
And one more thing: you’re now saying that they don’t kill whales commercially? So “Y is ok because we would be economically ruined if we didn’t do Y” doesn’t even apply, right? Or am I reading what you said incorrectly?
Why do you need a counter argument? X being valid/true has no impact on whether Y is valid/true. Attack an argument on the merits of the argument, not on the lack of merits of an alternative.
That said, the main argument in favor of eating meat is that humans evolved to eat meat, so our bodies need nutrients that are easier to find in meat (e.g. certain types of protein). However, meat was a much smaller portion of our diets in the past than it is today, so this argument is actually in favor of eating less meat, but still including meat in your diet.
The concepts of veganism aren’t really at odds with meat consumption. In many (most?) cases, vegans care most about the ethical treatment of animals (as opposed to vegetarians, who are more often motivated by nutrition), and our current meat processing industry is a lot less ethical than it was hundreds or thousands of years ago when most meat was either free range or wild. So I think it’s totally reasonable to take a middle ground and defend meat consumption on nutritional grounds while also defending veganism on ethical grounds.
A haplotype is a group of alleles in an organism that are inherited together from a single parent,[1][2] and a haplogroup (haploid from the Greek: ἁπλοῦς, haploûs, “onefold, simple” and English: group) is a group of similar haplotypes that share a common ancestor with a single-nucleotide polymorphism mutation.[3] More specifically, a haplotype is a combination of alleles at different chromosomal regions that are closely linked and that tend to be inherited together. As a haplogroup consists of similar haplotypes, it is usually possible to predict a haplogroup from haplotypes. Haplogroups pertain to a single line of descent. As such, membership of a haplogroup, by any individual, relies on a relatively small proportion of the genetic material possessed by that individual.
That’s race! That’s the definition of race! Fucking university types just don’t like the word!
Haplogroups can be used to define genetic populations and are often geographically oriented. For example, the following are common divisions for mtDNA haplogroups:
African: L0, L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, L6
West Eurasian: H, T, U, V, X, K, I, J, W (all listed West Eurasian haplogroups are derived from macro-haplogroup N)[10]
East Eurasian: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, Y, Z (note: C, D, E, G, and Z belong to macro-haplogroup M)
Native American: A, B, C, D, X
Australo-Melanesian: P, Q, S
They are describing race! It’s super fucking obvious if you get rid of whatever white guilt stupidity makes you get the ick when you hear the word “race”.
Can somebody explain to me why this needs Bluetooth?
Older people of lemmy what is some nuance sayings or typed on the net that you would like to have explained to you?
Elon Musk says Tesla is an AI company now. Here’s how plausible that is. (arstechnica.com)
US Court Rules Google a Monopoly in 'Biggest Antitrust Case of the 21st Century'. (www.commondreams.org)
Voice Of America: Google loses massive antitrust case over its search dominance....
YSK Americans, check to see if you can vote. Its real quick.
Link: www.vote.org/am-i-registered-to-vote/...
uBlock Origin developer recommends switching to Firefox as Chrome flags the extension (www.neowin.net)
~~www.neowin.net/news/…/~~...
Statue of Anne Frank in Amsterdam defaced with pro-Palestinian graffiti for a second time (www.cbsnews.com)
The statue commemorating Anne Frank, one of the most famous victims of the Holocaust, was defaced with pro-Palestinian graffiti for the second time on Sunday....
4 things white people can do to start making the fediverse less toxic for Black people (DRAFT!) (privacy.thenexus.today)
Feedback welcome! Here’s the TL;DR list...
Is Asmongold an alt-right "entrypoint" influencer?
When I watch certain of his Youtube clips, etc… some things bug me off. What do you think of it?
IOC leader says 'hate speech' directed at Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-ting is unacceptable | Africanews (www.africanews.com)
IOC President Thomas Bach said the “hate speech” directed at boxers Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-ting at the Paris Olympics is “totally unacceptable.”...
Knife vs. Gun Control?
Why are knife control laws so strong in the United States as opposed to gun control?...
The Right-Wing Campaign to Purge Women From Women’s Sports (theintercept.com)
Breast Cancer
Why does it feel as though only the US and China (and maybe some other Asian countries) have an economic future?
I live in Germany, which by some accounts, is the third largest economy, and we have literally no answer for what is next, economically. Neither in the public nor private sectors. Nobody is investing, nobody is building new things, nobody even knows what to do next. But the story is the same throughout Europe as far as I can...
Study Finds Consumers Are Actively Turned Off by Products That Use AI (futurism.com)
Meta addresses AI hallucination as chatbot says Trump shooting didn’t happen (arstechnica.com)
Meta “programmed it to simply not answer questions,” but it did anyway.
average day in NPM land (programming.dev)
Anti-whaling activist Paul Watson could face up to 15 years’ prison in Japan if convicted (www.theguardian.com)
Meat? (sh.itjust.works)
Is this just how it’s gonna be till Election Day? (lemmy.sdf.org)
never signed up for anything like this,...
a or b