Allero @ Allero @lemmy.today

Posts

15

Comments

2,197

Joined

2 yr. ago

Aren't they sourcing the search results from Bing?

Yes, it works perfectly well without Internet. Tried it both on physically disconnected PC and laptop in airplane mode.

Are they all inhumane, or are the commanders and some of the most brutal soldiers?

A lot of people got into the battlefield against their will, and among those who signed the contract, most did it for the money and not out of bloodlust.

Dehumanizing the enemy is leaving them little room to defect or change their views.

Will you keep us updated?

We want to know whatcoms next

It kinda exists, but I feel it is drowned in the era of outrage-based media.

And yes, it is often appropriated by various actors, even though the premise couldn't be clearer.

It's...in the name?

But also sure, here's the Cambridge Dictionary: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/anti-sexist

I support feminist ideas, but don't find them fitting to look at mens' problems.

You randomly slap misogynist labels left and right because you got so rigid you cannot even start to comprehend any view more nuanced than "feminism will save us all!"

Nothing wrong with feminism when it comes to women and their issues, by the way.

The problem is in your first remake of the quote.

I don't like being associated with anti-racism...

I support antisexism. You just equated feminism and antisexism again, while I do my best to highlight the distinction between them, as the latter is a bigger category than the former.

Nothing wrong with feminism as a fight for women's rights, but looking at mens' problems through the prism of feminism is the same as looking at racism against whites through the prism of BLM, or apples through bananas. That's simply the wrong tool, and I suggest having the swiss knife to have them all. Also, the issue of racism is much more one-sided (at least on the West) compared to sexism, so it's not an overly accurate prism to watch through.

There is feminism - about women. There is masculism (which is currently heavily discredited by patriarchal shitheads, but originally comes from the same place of equality as feminism) - about men. There are also nonbinaries fighting for their place in the world. And there is antisexism combining them all.

In principle, I do agree; but sometimes we have to explicitly highlight that men (or any other group) are included, because it's often implied that some group is not.

It could be helpful to look into stereotypes people of both genders face that stop them, in this case, from seeking therapy. One can call out issues women AND men (and nonbinary folks) face on the topic, thereby both being very explicit that everyone's involved, but maintaining a balanced message.

Something like "Men, you deserve support. You don't have to be tough", and then "Women, you don't have to be a neverending source of care. You might need help too" etc.

I don't like being associated with feminism for a single reason - not everyone agrees that both women and men suffer, and the blame is often shifted on men as "carriers of patriarchy". Besides, it is originally about women fighting for their rights, not men, and at any point in time women can note that it's for the women and about women, effectively shaking off the very men who promoted it - and to some degree, they will be correct.

We can do better by building a wider antisexist community. At the end of the day, all we want, as long as we act in good faith, is for everyone to be equal in their rights and opportunities. Women face sexism. Men face sexism. Some of it stems from patriarchy, some of it might come from other angles. We should come together not under the banner of feminism, not under the banner of masculism, but from the neutral ground if we ever hope to achieve a society that treats men and women as equals.

I'm happy you're in a better place mentally!

Toxic masculinity is a bitch.

Alright, that's fair on your part. Still, thus needs to be taken into account, as the real competition is not with the battery planes (we know they suck), but with combustion jets.

Oh, then that's true! And that's their legal obligation

It takes energy to produce fuel. So what?

The point is, the efficiency of the entire process is much smaller compared to battery. Some estimates say that between electrolysis, transportation and fuel cell conversion it's almost twice as bad in terms of energy efficiency, so you ultimately need double the energy for the same thing.

Sure, the math on planes is somewhat different as you need to account for battery weight. But really, it might still be more efficient to cram those batteries in. And as we know, it is still too bad to be usable.

There is already GPT4All.

Convenient graphical interface, any model you like (for Llama fans - of course it's there), fully local, easy to opt in or out of data collection, and no fuss to install - it's just a Linux/Windows/MacOS app.

For Linux folks, it is also available as flatpak for your convenience.

How long before AI interviewer accepts AI employee?

During the Soviet invasion of Finland, snipers paid a crucial role in fending off the attack. Knowing the terrain and unique geographic features, Finnish soldiers were much more effective in battle, and snipers even more so.

For this reason, the invasion didn't reach its ultimate goal despite Soviet Union having massive military advantage. Still, some territories went incorporated into the USSR.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War

Calling Russian troops "orcs" is already quite dehumanizing, which is a source of conflicts as it is.

But really, Finnish army was well-suited as is to resist Russian invasion by intimate knowledge of the location and a mighty network of civil and military defenses, but now with NATO support it's like a Viet Cong on steroids.

EDIT it seems to be a misunderstanding based on the misinterpretation of original statement. It was edited since then to clarify, rendering the original discussion obsolete.

Cars should NOT stay on the crosswalk when the red light is on. You should only drive through the crosswalk if the light is green and there is space behind the crosswalk enough to fit your car. If you stay there, blocking the crosswalk - you are in the wrong.

Pedestrians, however, can enter the crosswalk on green and continue crossing the road even if the traffic light turns red. It's still a good tone, however, to plan ahead and not make drivers wait.

Original comment preserved:

A Wikipedia piece on that very issue to hopefully settle us:

Red light prohibits entering the junction, not staying there. There are some rare regional deviations, such as in New York City, but generally staying after red is not a violation - at least as long as the junction is not specially marked by yellow grid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_traffic_lights

Waiting for Konsi!