I don't think the idea was to dehumanize, but rather to be more aware of the shared psychosis so many people are living in.
"They" claim that Trump won the election without any regard to facts and evidence. Imagining that "they" will suddenly change their mind if they get just one more piece of factual information is foolish considering everything we've seen so far. We must find another way to get through to "them".
Refusing to vote just lets people who do vote decide your fate. Refusing to vote for either major party candidate as a protest just means that you're okay with either one winning.
You might disagree philosophically, but I'm talking about the reality of what is going to happen. One of the two major party candidates is going to win. If your conscience tells you to vote third party, then sobeit. Just understand the potential consequences of that decision.
I always hate the "moving to Canada" thing. American hubris leads them to believe that they can just emigrate to whatever country they like without barriers. That's not how it works.
Just like the USA, Canada isn't going to grant citizenship to every rando who approaches their borders.
I will say this though, depending on where they're coming from in the US, and what they've experienced in terms of threats and persecution, I could see there being a case for requests for asylum for LGBT+ people trying to escape to Canada. And that's sad as hell for all of us.
It's honestly difficult for me to say because there are so many different ways to train AI. It really depends more on what the trainers configure to be a data point. Volume of files vs size of a single file aren't as important as what the AI believes is a data point and how the data points are weighted.
Just as a simple example, a data point may be considered a row on a spreadsheet without regard for how that data was split up across files. So ten files with 5 rows each might have the same weight as one file with 50 rows. But there's also a penalty concept in some models, so the trainer can set it so that data that all comes from one file may be penalized. Or the opposite could be true if data coming from the same file is deemed to be more important in some way.
In terms of how AIs make their decisions, that can also vary. But generally speaking, if 1000 pieces of data are used that are all similar in some way and one of them is somewhat different from the others, it is less likely that that one-off data will be used. It's much more likely to have an effect If 100 of the 1000 pieces of data have that same information. There's always the possibility of using that 1/1000 data, it's just less likely to have a noticeable effect.
AIs build confidence in responses based on how much a concept is reinforced, so you'd have to know something about the training algorithm to be able to intentionally impact the results.
I'm a technically savvy average consumer. I've just been accepting the enshitification. It feels like every month a different company is raising prices.
I'm about ready to put on an eye patch and fly the Jolly Roger at this point.
Yes, within reason. I'm actually not sure where that line is drawn though. Like whether sending a pre-paid shipping label and asking you to drop it off at a nearby UPS store is enough or if they actually have to have someone pick it up from your home or wherever it was shipped to.
You might already know this, but be mindful that if a company sent you the wrong thing and it wasn't a gift or solicitation, (i.e. an error - even if it was a preventable error) you do legally have to give it back if asked. Which is fair IMO. If I'm sending something expensive and fat finger the address, I'd want it back too.
It really depends on what the AI training is looking for. You can potentially poison an AI training model, but you'll likely have to add enough data to be statistically relevant.
The latest stable diffusion base model will be trained 100% on Dropbox dick pics. Your dick's likeness will be merged with that of thousands of other dicks and will be used to generate semi-realistic dick imagery.
No kidding. There's at least a month long wait to see any of my doctors. Same with my dentist unless it's urgent. Usually it's closer to two months.
If I need immediate attention, I have to go to an urgent care clinic or emergency room.
The nice thing is that in the year 2023, all of my doctors are reachable via the hospital system's app and they respond to questions relatively quickly. So there's no need to schedule a 15 minute appointment that ends up taking hours just to ask a simple question or two or to get a referral.
That's the potentially nice thing about Lemmy though - if you're savvy, you will probably start to identify which instances are more or less trustworthy than others. And if an instance tends to have a lot of untrustworthy activity, defederation is always an option. To what extent we'll see those things play out, I don't know yet, but it'll be interesting to see.
Here's where the loyalty part comes into play: if the insurance company doesn't like something, they can and will drop you or refuse to renew your policy depending on relevant laws. They might have decent service and pay claims without much of a fight, and those are incredibly valuable service qualities. So you're making the right decision for yourself if that's what's important to you and that's the experience you've had.
But if all things are equal, there's no good reason to pay a higher premium for the same service. You better believe that insurance company will drop you in a heartbeat if their analysis indicates that they won't have the level of profit from you that they want. As a for-profit business, that's their perogative just as much as it's yours if you want to switch.
I tend to agree with you by the way. Loyalty comes in many forms. I might not be loyal to a company per se. If they've consistently provided me with a level of service that I'm satisfied with at a price that I feel is appropriate for the value, then I'm not going to go through the trouble of checking prices and switching carriers every year just to save a few bucks. And there's the hassle of being hounded by a half dozen companies that now have your contact info after you requested quotes. That's all a big no thanks from me.
You might be able to adjust things without taking your eyes off the road fairly safely if you had some sort of tactile feedback. Like a knob to adjust the volume of the radio or another knob or lever to adjust the heat/AC. I doubt you could do so just as reliably and without accidentally hitting a different button with a touch screen without looking at all, but even if you can, most drivers couldn't.
There's also a learning curve to contend with. Put me in a car with a standard stereo that has a volume knob, and I'll be able to use it without looking pretty quickly and without error. Put me in a car that has only a touch screen with a UI that is different from every other manufacturer's UI, now I have to memorize where buttons are. And until I have it memorized, I have to look.
It isn't at all reasonable or feasible to suggest you shouldn't adjust any control unless you're stopped. That completely ignores the fact that the US is comprised of many highways and interstates that won't have any stops for hours under the right conditions. You're telling me that you exit the freeway just to adjust the AC? That's a lie and you know it. And again, even if that's the case for you, it isn't the case for most drivers.
Cars marketed to the masses should be designed for use by the masses and should be designed with safety in mind. These are 80 mph tin cans that can do a ton of damage and need to be treated as such. Especially modern EVs with batteries that burn with the light and temperature of 1000 suns when damaged.
Also "every other driver is staring at their phone" sounds like a disingenuous way to suggest that taking your eyes off the road is okay because everyone else does it too. Yes, lots of people do, but lots of people do not, and just because some do, that doesn't mean we should design our cars in a way that requires the same level of inattention.
I hear that anti-geometrists are trying to get the pythagorean theorem banned in schools now.