Grumpy @ Grumpy @sh.itjust.works

Posts

1

Comments

213

Joined

2 yr. ago

It is actually a deliberate corp strategy. Plastic straws were never a real concern, save for that ONE turtle. Plastic straw make such a negligible amount of plastic waste that stop using it will have virtually zero measurable impact in amount of plastic waste we create. All it ever was intended for was to make us feel like something was being done while doing absolutely nothing.

That's not to say all plastic reduction initiatives are pointless. But the straws definitely belong in the least environmentally impactful category.

Funny thing is... there isn't. Its easy for a woman to get laid if she chooses to. She can go on any dating app, like bunch of dudes and an average girl could easily have a different guy every night.

The single female population, albeit sizable too ofc, hasn't had much of a change as a percentage over the years. Single male population is however skyrocketing.

Two thirds of male under 30 are single. But only one third of female under 30 are single over a past year of time. You could theorize women are simply dating older now, which may be true, but wouldn't account for such drastic disparity. Also this gap exists in 30 to 40 bracket too, though much smaller.

Most simple answer is that they're sharing men, whether they realize it or not.

We know from dating apps that vast majority of women only select on very few percent of men. So the most attractive men are essentially having multiple women at the same time or at round robin (it's not cheating). Polygamy is pretty much coming back. In some other countries like china, polygamy has become an open secret for the rich.

Canadian right is not equal to the US left. I never said that, no idea where you'd draw such conclusion. Everything is relative, I don't see your point.

Are you trying to say that Canadian right is far more right (authoritarian and/or economic right) than the US left at the federal level? If so... then let's see...

• Canadian right (CR) is for single payer public health care. US left (UL) is not, the "Obamacare" is significantly more right. So CR is more economic left.
• CR is less militarized than UL. So CR is more libertarian.
• CR is more pro-immigration than UL. All spectrum of the current Canadian government is supporting the current immigration influx, despite all its controversy. So, again CR is more libertarian.
• CR's budget always had higher allocation to retirement, unemployment, maternity/paternity leave, etc. than UL. More left again.

So forth...

Sure, you'll might find some points where CR is seemingly more ideologically more authoritarian right than UL. But show me a single major government budget where CR has ever been more economically right than UL. Prove me wrong.

There's a lot of relativity in the left-right stuff.

Like California right is almost always more left leaning than the US federal left. Similar with Canadian right is more left than US left. But of course, california right is gonna be more right than california left, and canada right is gonna be more right than canada left.

Almost every tech company functions in this manner today.

Modern tech cycle is basically keep operating at a loss to increase userbase. And then one of the 3 scenarios happen. 1. Most obvious, they run out of investor money and make drastic unpopular changes to make profit as seen here. 2. Sell company to an even bigger tech company, who will then most likely kill it too. 3. Become google/meta/etc. themselves, which is the least likely scenario.

Indeed, discussion between the left and right no longer seems possible. Both sides focus on the extremes. The far-right arguments and the far-left arguments instead of the centrist povs.

I think that any controversial point that people have different takes works like this... Vast majority of people, free of influence from their others, are centrist. A bell-curve of dividing opinions. Most people would either not care, or not find a big issue about it. Few will take it to the extremes. But over time in political discourse, we move from a bell curve of opinions to two very divisive sides.

Since the main topic is apparently too hot of a take, I'll take pineapple on a pizza for example (Perhaps I'm getting into even hotter waters). Free of external influence (i.e. memes), I think most people will eat it without much thought. Some might like it, some might not, and I doubt it's all that controversial--likely less than anchovies. If you don't like it, you just don't have to eat it.

But if one extreme said we must ban pineapples from all pizzas, and the other end of the extreme said we must put pineapple on all pizzas, we have a very different scenario. I myself enjoy Hawaiian pizza and find pineapples to be a fine topping. But I certainly don't want to eat only pineapple pizzas all the time. So, I'd look at both extremes and side with no pineapples ever. That seems better of the two options. I can no longer be a centrist because the idea of having only pineapple pizza seems horrible. But I don't really eat whole pizzas by myself, I eat it with others. And if others are such great lovers of pineapple pizza, I'd be influenced to side with the other extreme of always having pineapple due to peers.

I want to highlight that both of these extremes are authoritarian. One forces you to eat pineapple. The other forces you to not eat pineapple. Neither are true libertarian choices. They are forced viewpoints one forces on the other. That's what forces people to have such strong negative emotion towards it. No one wants to be forced into things. This is important and I'll come back to this later.

Just look at every other reply to the comment I'm replying to. They highlight how the extreme right is horrible. Yeah. They are. It seems there's no arguing with them. They seem to have extreme authoritarian views. How do you deal with them as a left leaning person? You can't. The ones that can deal with them, are not you, but the centrists or the non-extreme rights. You can only bring them to your side by shunning your own extreme left. Vice versa the other way around too for rights bringing in the left. You need to recognize extremism and learn to shun them. But we don't do that. We get into team mentality and think your side is right and the other is wrong. The more people think like that, the more divisive people get because they associate the extreme with the rest. Just because I want to eat pineapple pizza doesn't mean I want to force everyone to eat pineapple pizza.

Look at this article. It constantly highlights how some members of the organization are extreme leaning. Yes, I'm sure there are. It's a team game after all. But then we're intentionally ignoring the vast quantity of people who aren't.

The right is seeing authoritarian regime from the left as their children are now forced to learn about things they don't approve of. Whether or not you think learning of LGBT+ in school is right or wrong is what you will be fixated on, but it is entirely irrelevant. Whether or not I want pineapple on pizza is irrelevant. Problem is forced. Problem is whether or not I'm forced to eat pineapple pizza. This is why you get such push away, why the centrists find themselves having to side with one or the other. They're siding with the one they feel less repulsed to. Though people love to (mis)quote the paradox of tolerance and how they must intolerate the intolerant, they don't realize this is said on both sides of the spectrum. Both sides feel forced by the other to suppress them, and then we continue to speculate on what is the other side through the extreme responses. This is why both sides keep saying they're victims. This is why they both claim the other is a fascist. You might not be the extreme authoritarian so you probably think the argument is idiotic, bigotry, etc. because you brought a sensible argument. But some of the people on your team are. You probably don't realize they're behind you. But they're the face the other side sees.

Though I did bring the solution, I doubt it's a plausible one. I don't think any significant number of people in the moderate political climate is interested in doing so. As seen by number of downvotes. Frankly, I think we're fucked.

Cost them more? I don't think people realize Unity's been working at a loss every year since the beginning, burning investor money. Just shutting down is quite frankly more profitable than continuing as is.

Whenever there is a major affordability housing project, it usually gets shut down by its area residents who get to have a say. They'll often say things like how it's unsightly because it blocks their views or overshadows their detached homes. Which in turn decreases their own house value. There are plethora of reasons, but I believe that is the one OP is making. NIMBY in other words. Alternatively, OP may be making comments about how government housing projects is socialism/communism and some people are rejecting simply on that basis.

Lack of supply in housing is a severe crisis in certain regions, like Toronto for example, which is now rated as the #1 housing bubble in the world according to some banks with the biggest reason being lack of supply. There's an estimated shortage of nearly 6 million homes for the Canadian population, most of which is around Toronto. The rapid housing prices is in turn making homelessness spike up.

Indirectly, but effectively, the local population is saying they'd rather have tents pitched near their homes rather than an affordable apartment near by.

I actually started on the day when it was 40°C / 104°F in humidex. Significantly less than favorable conditions. But I figured, if I can do that, I can do any other day. I do have the entire path with sidewalks though. And even a little bit of a park I can cut through.

I listen to either music or audiobook. Yeah, time goes fast.

I've actually started... walking to work. It takes me like 45min. So it's not a short walk, though it's a very short car commute. But the world is so different now that I'm walking. Having lived in car dependency vs walking is so different. And it's healthy for you too. More people should try it, if i's possible.

Wait... so you're 30min late for work everyday because you sleep in?

Sorry, this is wrong.

As a general statement: No, I am not. You're making an over specific scenario to make it true. Sure, if I take 1 image and train a model just on that one image, it'll make that exact same image. But that's no different than me just pressing copy and paste on a single image file. The latter does the job whole lot better too. This entire counter argument is nothing more than being pedantic.

Furthermore, if I'm making such specific instructions to the AI, then I am the one who's replicating the art. It doesn't matter if I use a pencil to trace out the existing art, using photoshop, or creating a specific AI model. I am the one who's doing that.

What gives a human right to learn off of another person without credit? There is no such inherent right.

Even if such a right existed, I as a person who can make AI training, would then have the right to create a tool to assist me in learning, because I'm a person with same rights as anyone else. If it's just a tool, which it is, then it is not the AI which has the right to learn, I have the right to learn, which I used to make the tool.

I can use photoshop to replicate art a lot more easily than with AI. None of us are going around saying Photoshop is wrong. (Though we did say that before) The AI won't know any specific art unless it's an extremely repeated pattern like "mona lisa". It literally do not have the capacity to contain other people's art, and therefore it cannot replicate others art. I have already proven that mathematically.

That's not how AI art works. You can't tell it to find art and plug it in. It doesn't have the capability to store or copy existing artworks. It only contains the matrix of vectors which contain concepts. Concepts cannot be copyrighted.

If AI art is stolen data, then every artists on earth are thieves too.

Do you think artists just spontaneously conjure up art? No. Through their entire life of looking at other people's works, they learned how to do stuff, they emulate and they improve. That's how human artists come to be. Do you think artists go around asking permission from millions of past artists if they can learn from their art? Do artists track down whoever made the fediverse logo if I want to make a similar shaped art with it? Hell no. Consent in general is impossible too because whole lot of them are likely too dead to give consent be honest. Its the exact same way AI is made.

Your argument holds no consistent logic.

Furthermore, you likely have a misunderstanding of how AI is trained and works. AI models do not store nor copy art that it's trained on. It studies shapes, concepts, styles, etc. It puts these concepts into matrix of vectors. Billions of images and words are turned into mere 2 gigabytes in something like SD fp16. 2GB is virtually nothing. There's no compression capable of anywhere near that. So unless you actually took very few images and made a 2GB model, it has no capability to store or copy another person's art. It has no knowledge of any existing copyrighted work anymore. It only knows the concepts and these concepts like a circle, square, etc. are not copyrightable.

If you think I'm just being pro-AI for the sake of it. Well, it doesn't matter. Because copyright offices all over the world have started releasing their views on AI art. And it's unanimously in agreement that it's not stolen. Furthermore, resulting AI artworks can be copyrighted (lot more complexity there, but that's for another day).

Absofuckinglutely yes.

Exxon spent $6.8 million dollars in lobbying in 2021. BP spent $4.27 million.

I genuinely believe that instead of doing marches, they should all just pool money they would've spent doing this march, and then just send that money to the politician's fundraiser and hire lobbyists. All these marches are super inefficient use of your money.

If you look at the company lobbying budgets, it's honestly not even that much money. It's way smaller than most people think. It's often in like 10s of thousands to 100s of thousands for large ones. Very few exceptional ones reach tens of millions. These people in the march probably spent like 100 dollars to drive out there (and spend gas...), buy lunch, print signs, etc. Almost any notable marches are like 10K people. Huge ones have literally millions of people. If they just pooled 100 dollars from each of them, they'd single handedly create the biggest and largest lobbying force ever created by ridiculous margins. Just imagine how much policies that much money could move. Yet we don't do that. We just scream at them and hope they listen. Then realize the march did jack shit, and we repeat hoping they might listen the next time. And repeat...

This and this other comment are stark opposites of life.

This and this other comment are stark opposites of life.