Nevoic @ Nevoic @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

138

Joined

2 yr. ago

People who go out and counter protest actively have given it more than a cursory thought. They know BLM isn't advocating for white genocide (okay, most of them understand this. There are some literal nazis/skin heads/white nationalists in the counter protesting groups that believe in The Great Replacement, but they believed this prior to BLM existing).

Yet they still go out and counter protest. It's not confusion at that point. You can't go up to an all lives matter reactionary and say "Hey! Did you know BLM doesn't actually want to murder all white people? Are you a fan of BLM now?" and actually expect any progress.

Yes, genocides are emotional. Watching children being blown up is something that should upset you. That's actually happening in the real world.

Emotion isn't the only thing that should inform your decisions, but pretending like you shouldn't be upset at watching kids being blown up, or begging for their parents, or whatever else have you is just foolish.

Is your argument that a genuine, good faith interpretation of "Black Lives Matter" is "Only Black Lives Matter"?

This isn't how English works. If I say "I like your mom" to an SO, they wouldn't interpret it as I don't like them and instead like their mom. I don't have to say "I like your mom too".

Yeah fuck people who are against animal abuse and actually live out their principles.

Like you could at least say "preachy vegans". This is still problematic, because it ignores that everyone is preachy about issues they understand are immoral (we're all preachy anti-racists, anti-rapists, etc.)

But just saying "vegan" is wild.

I don't use tiktok, but some people have unusually based tiktok feeds. They can get direct footage from the genocide happening in Gaza, for example. I never get that recommended on YouTube, despite my very obvious socialist leanings, watching pro-Palestine content, etc.

This is the actual reason tiktok is being banned (if they don't sell) after the election. One of the largest lobbying groups in America, AIPAC, in probably the most well-funded policy categories (pro-Israel policies) backs most of Congress. They've determined tiktok has far too much influence on American youth, and has made the Israel/Palestine divide a young/old divide more-so than a left/right divide.

There's already a strong correlation between political leaning and age, which is problematic for the future of the fascist movement in America, but this issue falls outside the norm. You'll find a lot of young conservatives calling for an end to the needless killing of civilians. They won't call it a genocide because admitting Israel is a genocidal apartheid state is too far for them, but they can at least admit killing tens of thousands of children is not the right path here.

That kind of extremism (e.g not greenlighting any amount of culling of "human animals" Israel feels it needs to do) is unacceptable to the pro-Israel lobby, and they're not used to getting this kind of pushback from the American public.

As someone who has primarily used spaces, I still use the tab key. I sincerely hope most space users understand that your editor can expand your tab key into spaces, and people aren't genuinely going around spamming their spacebar 2->16 times for various indentation levels.

Glad someone said this, it bothers me even with human ages. Like there's this perception that as you get older you simply gain knowledge, wisdom, world experience, etc. Not a lot of people account for biological limits for knowledge/memory, nor degradation from aging.

If some young intern decided to try to have sex with Biden, I think there's genuinely a conversation to be had about if that's statutory rape. I think you'd need a healthcare professional to rule on if Biden has the mental capacity to fully consent. Similar to a drunk person. They're still obviously a person able to think/engage with the world, but they're heavily impaired and unable to fully consent as a result. Age impairs cognition too.

"they can't learn anything" is too reductive. Try feeding GPT4 a language specification for a language that didn't exist at the time of its training, and then tell it to program in that language given a library that you give it.

It won't do well, but neither would a junior developer in raw vim/nano without compiler/linter feedback. It will roughly construct something that looks like that new language you fed it that it wasn't trained on. This is something that in theory LLMs can do well, so GPT5/6/etc. will do better, perhaps as well as any professional human programmer.

Their context windows have increased many times over. We're no longer operating in the 4/8k range, but instead 128k->1024k range. That's enough context to, from the perspective of an observer, learn an entirely new language, framework, and then write something almost usable in it. And 2024 isn't the end for context window size.

With the right tools (e.g input compiler errors and have the LLM reflect on how to fix said compiler errors), you'd get even more reliability, with just modern day LLMs. Get something more reliable, and effectively it'll do what we can do by learning.

So much work in programming isn't novel. You're not making something really new, but instead piecing together work other people did. Even when you make an entirely new library, it's using a language someone else wrote, libraries other people wrote, in an editor someone else wrote, on an O.S someone else wrote. We're all standing on the shoulders of giants.

18 months ago, chatgpt didn't exist. GPT3.5 wasn't publicly available.

At that same point 18 months ago, iPhone 14 was available. Now we have the iPhone 15.

People are used to LLMs/AI developing much faster, but you really have to keep in perspective how different this tech was 18 months ago. Comparing LLM and smartphone plateaus is just silly at the moment.

Yes they've been refining the GPT4 model for about a year now, but we've also got major competitors in the space that didn't exist 12 months ago. We got multimodality that didn't exist 12 months ago. Sora is mind bogglingly realistic; didn't exist 12 months ago.

GPT5 is just a few months away. If 4->5 is anything like 3->4, my career as a programmer will be over in the next 5 years. GPT4 already consistently outperforms college students that I help, and can often match junior developers in terms of reliability (though with far more confidence, which is problematic obviously). I don't think people realize how big of a deal that is.

I like your comment, but there's an important note that needs to be made, I'm not the one who invented the conflation of organizational and electoral politics. Putting all that under the sphere of "politics; not to be discussed at work" was a convenient tactic by capitalists to delegitimize important political discussions under the guise of the important considerations you bring up.

Conflation is a powerful rhetorical strategy. Capitalists do it with other things too (legitimizing private property by putting personal property under that umbrella, somehow making you owning your own home the same "kind" of ownership as Elon Musk/Tesla owning a factory on the other side of the planet that he's never stepped foot into).

The dual to conflation here is intersectionalism, which is important to consider too. It's not always relevant (e.g foreign trade policy often won't intersect with organizational politics), but it sometimes is. "right to work" ideals in electoral politics directly impacts organizational politics, so if we legitimize and normalize the latter, it'd be hard to unilaterally ban the former as well. The line gets muddy, and it's better to stray too far on the side of allowing too much discussion so organizing can actually take place, than too much restriction.

I get some people have immense faith in capitalist rule, that you genuinely believe that the reason it's normalized to not discuss salaries or politics is for your own good. Some people don't believe in class antagonisms. This used to be a purely fascist position, but liberals adopted it in the mid 20th century because of how effective it is at driving complacency.

Politics used to be common in the workplace. Not necessarily electoral politics, but organizational politics, which is far more important and impactful, and also much more regulated by capitalists and the petite bourgeoise. I've talked to my boss about electoral politics before, and it didn't cause issues. If I brought up unions with him I'd be fired within a month (based on how other union organizers were let go).

Yup, just like it's employment 101 to not discuss salaries.

Lack of communication and organization is a fantastic way to keep workers in line. Genuinely all it takes are a handful of socialists in an environment of heavily exploited workers to get a union going. They can all feel the material harm capitalism is causing, but lack the language and means to express and resist that harm.

When socialists provide it (via politics in the workplace), that harms companies. When communication takes place (salary sharing, organization tactics, etc.) you place a strain on the bourgeoise to behave more inline with worker expectations. This isn't what capitalists want.

Are you making a descriptive or normative claim in your first paragraph?

I don't think revolutions are any more likely to be fascist than socialist, historically though genuine socialist revolutions tend to lose, mostly because international capitalism can play very nicely with fascism, but not socialism.

However if the U.S underwent genuine socialist revolutions, it's an entirely different ballgame. The U.S has been the capitalist hand on the global stage for the better part of a century, constantly involved in overthrowing democratically elected governments in favor of fascist dictatorships.

With that constant capitalistic/fascistic pressure gone, and better-yet replaced with genuine socialism, you'd get a very interesting situation. You'd have genuine socialism in the U.S (probably followed by at least some socialist revolution or socialist-inspired reforms in Europe), and then rhetorical socialism in the east, marred by material capitalism. The contradictions of the global stage would intensify, and I don't think there's any Chinese theory for development in an internationally socialist stage.

It's more counterproductive to be a non-vegan and try to convince nobody. I've had a good deal of success convincing people to go vegan. There are definitely vegans that are more successful than me, but you want to know who is always less successful? Non-vegans who rage online about vegans.

They should be the focus of our criticism, both in their own actions, and even as a broader strategy for enacting change.

Also I'd go as far to claim malapropisms don't exist. There is no "incorrect" use of a word. I'm not a prescriptivist. Language is about communicating ideas, and I know everything I've said would make sense to a great deal of people I know.

Maybe something doesn't make sense to you, maybe because we learned different definitions or usages of some word or phrase. Neither of us are wrong, we've just hit a language barrier. This is uncommon in English, but actually happens quite regularly in Europe even with two people speaking "the same language".

Our best example of this is going from American -> British English, but it can happen within the same "dialect" too.

Now there are obviously times where you try to adopt some language someone else has, and misunderstood it, so your usage aligns with essentially nobody else's (so the word has lost all function). I know that's not the case with what I'm saying because I've had these types of conversations with enough people who have understood me, but I'm fine humoring you, and still interested where the clash/miscommunication happened.

Feel free to correct me, most (or dare I say all) people aren't born omniscient, so sometimes we misuse words or phrases. I'm not sorry to admit that I'm sometimes incorrect about things, I used to be a staunch non-vegan for example.

what state is forcing a diet on you

The dog and cat meat trade prohibition act in 2018 in the U.S outlaws the slaughter and trade of dog/cat meat, in effect banning it as a diet.

I'd be more than happy with this exact same legislation being passed, but just for chickens/cows/pigs/etc. too. If you don't think that this is prohibiting a diet, sure. Let's just ban the slaughter/trade of cow/pig/chicken meat and say we found a good compromise.

It's impressive watching you repeatedly sidestep the main point, about how your view of dogs/cats is inconsistent with your view of pigs/cows/chickens.

I'm not a moral leader, I'm making points you repeatedly sidestep with ad-hominems. You can't articulate counter points, so you repeatedly attack me as an individual. It's awesome.

The really cool thing about actually every person I've met or heard of online, in person, etc. is anytime they're not vegan due to a health issue, they can't actually say what that health issue is.

People are genuinely more open about any other aspect of their health or mental state. People more readily open up about their schizophrenia or suicidal-level depression than whatever mysterious health issue "prevents veganism".

It's cool too, because there is actually no medical issue that prevents veganism. Every major health association has come out and said a vegan diet is suitable for literally all people at all stages of life. That might seem reductive, until you realize how many different vegan foods there are. You're likely able to eat beans, lettuce, and rice (and if not, surprise, there are other vegan foods), and those 3 things alone have sustained poor people for decades. Living in a rich western country makes this vastly easier too.

It's just funny hearing the broad, fake excuse because so many people use it when it's totally incoherent by the account of every major medical association.

A small sidenote too about your advice, I appreciate you trying to help, but I'm actually happy with how many people I've converted and continue to convert to veganism. I'd even bet good money that I've converted more people to veganism than you.

If you find a tactic that converts more than a few dozen people per year, let me know, but out of the two of us I probably have more actual real world experience converting people to veganism, given I'm the vegan activist, and you should consider that a vegan activist might know more about vegan activism than a non-vegan.

At least consider it as a possibility, my friend.