LOGIC💣

The US military has had many incidents where it was sloppy as shit. I wouldn’t completely write off the idea that they might just be a lot more incompetent than most people think.

Didn’t you hear how many wars he ended? There was the, uhhh, Albania-Azerbaijan war, the uhh, Israel-Palestine war that he completely ended moments before they started a new completely different war. Also Robot Wars and Storage Wars. And many others behind the scenes, so that from the outside, he seems to have done nothing at all.

Actually, hearing about this, I’m now surprised that our military didn’t stop the fishing boats first to siphon all of the gasoline out of their tanks before blowing them up and murdering their crew.

It was carrying drugs?

This type of drug has several street names, among them, black gold and Texas tea.

It sounds to me like she was sexually harassing him.

I am not bi, but I wonder if bisexual people didn’t get the worst name for their sexuality. Because I suspect that most of them simply don’t care about the other person’s gender. I think they’re attracted to the person themselves, regardless of gender. And now that people accept that there are more than two genders, the “bi” in “bisexual”, meaning “two” seems overly specific.

But anyways, back to the example at hand, assuming that his type of “bi” means that he cares about other stuff more than gender, it’s hard to imagine a worse way to come onto him than to do what that lady did. “I have a terrible personality, now let’s see that hard dick.”

I even think the headline is a little offensive, acting as if ceding land is even an option. They ceded land to Russia a decade ago and they’re still getting attacked. WW2 should have taught us that you can’t appease guys like Putin and Hitler.

It’s more like the ancient phenomenon of spaghetti code. You can throw enough code at something until it works, but the moment you need to make a non-trivial change, you’re doomed. You might as well throw away the entire code base and start over.

And if you want an exact parallel, I’ve said this from the beginning, but LLM coding at this point is the same as offshore coding was 20 years ago. You make a request, get a product that seems to work, but maintaining it, even by the same people who created it in the first place, is almost impossible.

For me, the important thing is that this is a vibrant community.

That means that from the mods’ perspectives, they don’t get too loaded down with moderation work, or need to defend themselves and create friction with the community.

It also means that when people want to contribute to the community, they’re not afraid of what the mods will say. If they post without reading the rules, like probably most people do, it’s really the poster’s fault. But if they are afraid to post even after reading the rules, then I think that has a freezing effect on the community.

As for people who are looking for loopholes, I think they’re trying to make the mods’ lives harder, and so I don’t really think they’re worth worrying too much about. They’ll probably get banned sooner or later because that is the attitude of a troll.

Just my opinion. I’ve never been a mod, and I don’t think I could handle that responsibility. I just try to be empathetic with everybody involved.

You’re right. One problem is, even though mods already have the power, specifically saying in the rules that the criteria is subjective sounds like something that a mod would make when they are tired of having to explain their moderation choices.

They can just say that it was low-effort, and problem solved. They don’t need to explain themselves, right?

But when the rules are vague, I think they’ll end up with more complaints from people who have different criteria of low-effort from the mods. This sort of interaction leads to accusations of mods power-tripping.

If the mods can nail down exactly what is low-effort, like, “X will always get removed. Z will never get removed unless it violates other rules. Y may be at risk of the moderator’s mood. You have been warned.” If they nail things down a bit more, then they will probably make things easier for themselves in the long-run than just keeping things vague.

Plus, if the rules are not vague, then people can discuss them safely when the rules are changed. When rules are vague, people will simply be upset that moderation was sprung on them, and everything will be discussed while people are upset. My belief is that people best discuss things while calm, and not while experiencing one person having power over another.

When I took my AI coursework in college, that was basically the definition of AI.

I can see that there are two very different definitions, depending upon how “artificial” is interpreted.

One definition of artificial simply describes the product of human effort. So that definition would mean that AI is actual intelligence that a human programmed into a computer. Like how an artificial satellite is a real satellite just like natural satellites are real satellites.

Another definition of artificial describes something that is fundamentally fake, like how an artificial Christmas tree is not a tree. It only looks like a tree. This is the usage I was taught in college that describes AI. Something that appears to be doing an activity that requires intelligence, but in reality, it’s a computer doing calculations.

I think the second definition must be the most common. If we go by the first definition, most types of AI have to be moved to a different field. Things like decision trees simply wouldn’t qualify.

He’s a Nazi who is building AI Hitler.

I haven’t read the article, but I have read previous accusations of the same thing, so I assume it’s the same.

Basically, the new AI companies are all losing money, but they are all investing big money in each other which makes it look like the industry is doing well.

Welcome to Trump’s America. “Well that fucking sucks for humanity,” might as well be the phrase that historians use to summarize his second term.

If you’ll recall, he tried to withdraw America from the WHO at the end of his first term, but failed due to losing the election before the request was accepted. The WHO’s recommendations didn’t match what Trump said during the COVID pandemic, and Trump will use any means at his disposal to quash dissent.

“Killings at sea” is a better phrase than some I’ve heard, but I wish they’d emphasize that we are using our military to murder civilians. They are non-military targets.

They were not charged with a crime. They had no chances to defend themselves. They received nothing remotely resembling due process. They were not convicted by a court, nor given the death penalty. We in the US do not execute people for possessing or transporting drugs.

Our military is simply murdering people.

What? They get to vote for that? When do I get to vote whether we let Qatar have a base on American soil?

In the main picture, about half of those videos use filters that do something based on the location of the person’s head. Unless they’ve changed the definition since I went to college, that would be classified as a type of computer vision, aka AI.

I have heard that the Tesla board is stacked with people who Elon personally chose. So that is why they constantly give him money and basically do not act anything like a public company. I suspect they are all stealing from the company’s shareholders.

So just firing Elon is not enough. The board needs to be completely replaced, and the new board needs to file the biggest lawsuit in history against Elon and the former board members. That’s really the bare minimum for Tesla to recover.

But most likely, the company simply needs to go under and let some other company buy their IP.

what would you do with an old dell server?

I thought this post was going to be a sea shanty.

Today, we have 0%. At the beginning of the Biden administration, we had 95%. The policies of that administration really caused us to lose practically the entire China market. - NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang

The article says that both Biden’s and later, Trump’s policies have decreased NVIDIA’s market share. He’s really phrasing it in a favorable way to Trump. Like, the same way, you could say the following, “At the beginning of the Obama administration, we had zero deaths from COVID. Now, we have millions.” Just skip over the part that is inconvenient for propaganda, right?

However, the loss of NVIDIA’s market share in China isn’t only attributed to the previous administration, since under President Trump, Team Green had to halt the sales of its H20 AI chip temporarily, and they were resumed only after the firm agreed on a ‘revenue sharing’ model with the Trump government. More importantly, with US-China trade relations being influenced, NVIDIA also suffered a significant setback from China, as domestic regulators and authorities began persuading Chinese Big Tech companies not to use Team Green’s AI chips.

Also, Jensen Huang’s statement betrays an insane naivete about China. Newsflash: China always tries to take international industry and make a domestic Chinese version. If you have a 95% share of something in China and you’re a foreign company, that simply means it’s related to some fresh technology, or that it’s virtually worthless. If it is believed to have value, China will have their own stuff before you know it, and don’t expect IP laws like patents or copyright to slow them down. They don’t give a shit about that stuff for foreign companies.

This reminds me of how police abuse any new tool they’re given.

Like how while trained dogs can actually sniff out drugs, when they’re given to police, they get retrained to simply alert whenever the police want them to, and essentially become a flimsy reason to let police violate your rights and search anybody they want to.

And the police suffer zero repercussions for their actions. If they don’t find drugs, there’s nobody who’s going to take them to court and force them to retrain their dogs or to disallow drug dogs from being used as reasonable suspicion.