He's persona non grata these days, but the old quote from Scott Adams applies here:
"I read a newspaper article about something I know very well—my own field—and it was so full of errors that I had to wonder how many errors there were in other articles on topics I didn’t know much about."
If they're getting an important detail like this so mindblowingly wrong, what else are they getting wrong?
I asked it to write a review of beowulf in the style of beowulf. It wrote something rhyming which is not they style of beowulf. I said "rewrite this so it doesn't rhyme" and it gave me something rhyming. I tried several times in several different ways including reasoning with it, and it just kept on kicking out a rhyming poem.
If you want to see examples of the policies that politicians campaign on but then drop once they're in power, just take a look at what legislation ends up getting put on the table when there's absolutely no chance of it passing.
The Democrats had control of both houses of Congress in the us, but it wasn't until the Republicans ended up with Congress that they decided to put Federal wealth taxes on the table. Now I'm not saying that I agree with Federal wealth taxes, but that's obviously a thing that they are holding over people's heads to get them to vote for them.
The Republicans on the other hand talk a really good game on fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets when the Democrats are in power, but when they controlled the executive the Congress and the Senate they ended up passing budgets with some of the largest deficits in history. If you go back in history, for the past 40 years that's been the case with conservatives. They'll magically put things on the table to balance the budget when the other party has control of the government and they know there's no chance of it passing.
In the past 20 years, the Democrats had achieved a supermajority in Congress and the senate, they could have passed any piece of legislation they wanted. They could have passed Federal legislation forcing the states to keep gay marriage and abortion legal. They didn't do that. So when the flimsy court case gets overturned, there's much caterwalling over activist judges.
Of course everyone knows about obama, who rose to power in large part because of the anti-war faction of the left and center, but it was actually his Republican successor that finally started the ball rolling on getting America out of Afghanistan. He also talk about shutting down Guantanamo bay, and never did. The Obama administration in general was a perfect example of an administration that campaigns one way and rules other.
Up in canada, prime minister today Justin Trudeau ran on a number of different promises including Senate reform, and proportional representation. Both of those promises were dropped immediately once he got into power. Another quite famous promise was that he was going to bring clean water to all the native reserves that had been underwater advisories in some cases for decades. Despite spending more debt than every single prime minister before him combined, there are still lots of native reserves without clean water.
The previous prime minister, Stephen Harper, was a member of the Conservative party of Canada and obviously ran on fiscal responsibility. It was only in his very last year in charge of the country that he finally balanced the budget. He had been handed a balanced budget by the previous administration, the Federal liberals.
So in general, you can't actually trust politicians to rule the way that they say they're going to. You have to wait until a little while after they get into power to see how they're actually going to rule. You can say that it's just cuz they're liars, but in reality a lot of the times answers seem a lot easier when you're not actually having to make the decisions. I know myself, I've been put into positions of power and the people below me thought that I had a lot more latitude than I actually did. They'd say things like "you can't let them do that!" Not realizing that having a little bit of power did not mean that I could boss everyone around.
Now I've talked about a bunch of things that people kind of wanted that went differently, but sometimes while running someone promises to do something really stupid and then they don't do it, and that's something else too. Donald Trump repeatedly promised to put Hillary Clinton in jail, and as far as we can tell he didn't even try. Thank goodness.
I've been saying for a while now: AI demos really well, but when you actually need it to do a thing it often fails spectacularly.
It's a verisimilitude engine: It tries to make something that looks like it should be right, rather than actually trying to be right. Sometimes the easiest answer is the right answer so it gives that, but when you start asking it harder questions, it'll just make something up that looks right but isn't.
I believe it can be, but what I've found in general with respect to my fediverse journey is that pretty much everything is built for Linux. If you want to use windows, you'll likely have to blaze a trail for yourself.
I had one windows PC in my server farm initially, but installed Linux after I realized most things I wanted to run really wanted me to be running Linux.
privacy redirect on chrome based browsers lets you do the same for a number of different services too. Really nice to help enforce staying away from our big tech overlords.
long before the reddit migration there was a lotide instance called goldandblack which was made up of the subreddit of the same name. It was largely a mirror of the posts on the subreddit. It looked neat at first but the effect was actually terrible since you'd get a flood of empty stories on your feed.
Not sayin nothin', but back when I was partaking in that sort of thing, sinvr was pretty amazing. It's 3d, but it's also reactive based on your movement rather than just a prerecorded video, so it reacts to you moving your hands around and touching things.
I don't like listening to background music while reading. I generally prefer silence or white noise. I'm working on an extremely limited attention budget, so adding more things to pay attention to is often a great way to get distracted from the book I'm reading.
I wish I could argue with you on this point, but while I think no group should be beyond criticism and that includes "protected groups", I would tend to agree that some of the posts I've seen in the past are probably over a line and as such I can understand why people would just say "naw, let's just not federate that".
There are lots of good posts on the site even -- they cover a lot of stuff we should be talking about such as crony capitalism and corruption, but it doesn't take many really bad posts gone completely unmanaged and unchallenged to turn an instance into a superfund site, even for reasonably liberal people who want to allow talking about controversial topics.
I think that's a much better argument than just painting the site and everything and everyone on it with a broad brush. "There's specific stuff on that site that they find acceptable but we don't and there's been instances where the users there brought their unacceptable stuff into the other communities so we don't want to federate with them to maintain our own community standards" is difficult to argue with. It's a well-reasoned point that shows everyone is thinking for themselves which is all I ask.
And yeah, I saw OP was from beehaw afterward and realized that they were probably around a bit before all this.
SJ_Zero @ SJ_Zero @lemmy.fbxl.net Posts 8Comments 170Joined 2 yr. ago
He's persona non grata these days, but the old quote from Scott Adams applies here:
"I read a newspaper article about something I know very well—my own field—and it was so full of errors that I had to wonder how many errors there were in other articles on topics I didn’t know much about."
If they're getting an important detail like this so mindblowingly wrong, what else are they getting wrong?