_NoName_ @ JayDee @lemmy.ml

Posts

0

Comments

402

Joined

3 yr. ago

The outrage is more that a label is being applied to them. They want it to be 'women' and 'trans women', where only 'non-normal' identities get a label.

The application of 'cis' bothers conservatives because it changes the narrative, from people who identify as their assigned sex being 'the default', into cis people just another state of identity with no more significance than the others.

I've seen others saying it's legit.

Also would be pretty hard to substantiate or debunk definitively.

Concrete evidence would be, say, the tiktoker in question being caught out or admitting it was fabricated.

I'll show you my source if you show me yours.

Sure you can.

• Look under the water.
• oh shit a shark.
• shark don't give a fuck bout no human, keeps on swimmin.
• you survived.

You could also survive a serial killer in a similar way.

"Here's your latte, Sir."

But also, you could take a small shark.

Can't tell if this is sarcasm. Not a proponent of AI, but this is actually somewhat correct.

A well-documented phenomena regarding salmon are the salmon runs, where salmon migrate up rivers in order to mate.

They are quite often shown leaping out of the water to fight currents, to the point that grizzly bears have made it a hunting practice to wait at the top of rapids and grab the salmon out of the air.

It got the fish wrong. Though. I think that coloration is more like a trout, but in reality it's a whateverthefucktheaifeelslike fish

Hierarchy, being a chain of command in which an individual above, privvy to more information, gives you instructions to follow. This includes military organizations, but is just as applicable to a doctor-patient relationship.

Coercion, meaning the threat of retaliation, through physical force, revoking of freedoms or privileges, or denial of resources.

Voluntary, meaning of one's own means, with no coercion or realization of coercion, with the clear option to opt out being present whenever possible.

This does not leave things in question, I believe. Currently, we all operate within hierarchies at work with explicit threats of destitution being held over our heads, through the denial of currency. Meanwhile, there is no coercion from your physician despite it still being hierarchical in nature, because the hierarchy is entirely based on trust and is voluntary.

At that point, we're just doing it to be petty. Not like we're gonna reform him and make him see the error in his ways in there. It's just punishment for punishment's sake.

An assassination attempt was logical at face value, at least. Trump poses a threat, so you eliminate that threat, just as you would an animal stalking you. Of course, killing trump isn't actually going to end this craziness.

I think that is a misreading of why moral codes come into being, and I am not trying to preach moralism.

Moral codes are not universal truths, but instead rules of engagement for maintaining order within a system, and they exist within every social scope, though their level of detail tends to decay as the scope becomes more interpersonal. They're not really a tool of the state, but instead just a human tool. The state just codifies its own and disseminates it into the social collectives it rules.

My statement above is a moral observation about political morality within the US, and which I view is generally a useful rule within any democratic political system (I am referring to systems which have a structure and voting system associated with democratic processes, not necessarily ideal or actual democracies).

I am also not saying that this moral code is necessarily good for us or the system itself at any given moment, but stating why this moral code exists in the first place, and why anyone who is apart of our system and wants that system to survive (whether that be for avoiding personal turmoil or political ideology) will continue to condemn assassination attempts from any side.

By weighing all violence as immoral you are not ruling it out completely. You make it a last-resort, where you avoid one great injustice with a lesser injustice - a lesser injustice which you still face consequences for.

The alternative is morally sanctifying some murders, which leads to 'morally justified' murders being done by all political sides (since they each view themselves as 'the moral ones'), and which eventually gets twisted into the party in power murdering their opponents with impunity because it's 'morally justified'.

There were times when individuals did not work for someone higher than them on a pecking order, though that model is physically not possible in an industrial society, I think.

That being said, hierarchies can be made voluntary rather than enforced by threat of violence, and I'd argue that requiring all servitude to be uncoerced would lead to a better future.

Cat so homophobic it's not even comfortable with homochromia.

I understand some instruction expansions today are used to good effect in x86, but that there are also a sizeable number of instructions that are rarely utilized by compilers and are mostly only continuing to exist for backwards compatibility. That does not really make me think "more instructions are usually better". It makes me think "CISC ISAs are usually bloated with unused instructions".

My whole understanding is that while more specific instruction options do provide benefits, the use-cases of these instructions make up a small amount of code and often sacrifice single-cycle completion. The most commonly cited benefit for RISC is that RISC can complete more work (measured in 'clockcycles per program' over 'clockrate') in a shorter cyclecount, and it's often argued that it does so at a lower energy cost.

I imagine that RISC-V will introduce other standards in the future (hopefully after it's finalized the ones already waiting), hopefully with thoroughly thought out instructions that will actually find regular use.

I do see RISC-V proponents running simulated benchmarks showing RISC-V is more effective. I have not seen anything similar from x86 proponents, who usually either make general arguments, or worse , just point at the modern x86 chips that have decades of research, funding, and design behind them.

Overall, I see alot of doubt that ISAs even matter to performance in any significant fashion, and I believe it for performance at the GHz/s level of speed.

Instruction creep maybe? Pretty sure I've also seen stuff that seems to show that Torvalds is anti-speculative-execution due to its vulnurabilities, so he could also be referring to that.

Marvel and Starwars have been taking heat for pumping out boring and poorly written films for a while now. I think Pixar's stuff is still mostly decent, though. That being said, I also expect a completely different standard of work from Pixar since it's for kids first and foremost.

You were the one who implied that, by saying that not having children leaves it up to those who will.

You already have an entire vocabulary for solar time (sunrise, morning, noon, evening, sunset, night, midnight). This being all of a sudden assigned to a different time on a clock does not change things in any dramatic fashion. It would also be a consistent change for your current location, guarantee it only takes you less than a work week to acclimate.

All the things you've described I've literally been doing for 6 months now. It is not a noticable difference and does not impact me.

Also, a book that says "it was 5 o'clock" is objectively more boring than one that describes the shadows of twilight blanketing the scene in a checkering of shadow. Also TV shows show outside, where solar time is visibly apparent. The specific time is not nearly as relevant.

Also, you already look up time zones when scheduling international meetings, and those aren't going to tell you about siestas or other local practices which might affect scheduling. Maybe just actually ask the person what times will work when trying to schedule, and now since you're both using UTC, you both can figure it out together without looking up timezones.

Adoption. Community building. Helping the disenfranchised.

These are all methods of bettering the future without pumping another child into this world. And arguably, they're morally better than having a child.

I agree that bringing life into the world is morally bad. I also agree that eating other animals is morally bad, as is killing, always. However, that does not mean we should not do these things at times. You just need to understand that you are still committing an immoral act for personal gain. There is no such thing as a perfectly moral existence, as the world is a cruel place which cares little about morality and often forces you to be immoral. You should instead work towards being as moral as in out can when you can, and accept that sometimes morality is out of your hands.

In the case of the child: you are bringing a human consciousness kicking and screaming into this world you know to be dangerous and cruel. That is immoral, and you did it either by failing precaution, or out of personal want or instinct. I think to repent, you are morally obligated to give that child a good life at minimum and ideally the best life you can. You are beholden to them until they can live on their own happily, and you are obligated to help them even after that. I also think that if that child resents how you've cared for them, you have no grounds to hold that against them, as you were the one that forced them into this world.

If you cannot do the above, you are should reconsider whether you are fit to have a child.

It is also arguable that to do justice without injustice, the only option is to adopt or guide another person who has no one providing things they need, and I don't think this kindness should be limited to children but children are the most vulnerable.

Miles is chill in my book. I appreciate what he is tackling, and hope he continues.

It seems that there are much worse issues with AI systems that are happening right now. I think those issues should be taking precedent over the alignment problem.

Some of the issues are bad enough right now that AI development and use should be banned for a limited time frame (at least 5 years) while we figure out more ethical ways of doing it. The fact that we aren't doing that is a massive failure of our already constantly-fucking-up governments.

There's an entire section of Hamas' Wikipedia page dedicated to it. The gist is that there's testamony that Israel explicitly funded Hamas in order to counter the PLO. This was to ensure a Palestinian state would never materialize.

I have not researched the matter due as enough to have a full opinion, though I've heard multiple individuals state that it is almost indisputable that it happened.

I understand what you mean. The future is scarily uncertain right now.

I encourage folks take that anxiety and turn it into productivity. Look into your local solidarity communities, which may take form as Union groups, local food shelfs, or many other forms. Donating your time or resources is what can help those most impacted right now and later down the line. There's no cut and dry way to find them, you just have to look and ask around your community.

I would also recommend beginning to prep. There's some small communities on Lemmy, such as preppers@Lemmy.world ( you can find others by searching communities with 'prep' in their name). There's also some great podcasts covering prepping such as LLTWID and It Can Happen Here(this one is more heavy on current news but provides prep info in some episodes.

I would also say that keeping your ear on guntubers isn't a bad idea (Brandon Herrera, Garand Thumb, etc.). Not only do they provide tutorials that are potentially useful in extreme cases (Garand Thumb's urban and rural evasion tutorials and TRex Arm's summary of radio comms for example), but they are also likely laying out the playbooks most amateur militia will use in the future (if it comes to that), which could be useful info to know going forward.