Schadrach @ Schadrach @lemmy.sdf.org

Posts

0

Comments

1,097

Joined

2 yr. ago

Huh, didn't know her birthday offhand. So she'll be 35 by Jan 20, 2025? And she of course is a natural born US citizen who has lived in the US for the requisite number of years.

Normally POTUS candidates pick VPs that in their minds shore up their perceived weak spots among voters to make them overall more electable. So who do you think Harris would do worst with and why would AOC draw that demographic in?

Oh now, we've been predicting the weather far longer than you imagine. We just haven't been very good at it until fairly recently.

He shot a woman for no good reason. That's enough. People care more when bad things happen to women.

It's why black folks being a larger share of people shot by police than their share of population is definitely racist but no one bats an eye at more than 95% of folks shot by police being men.

The most recent season has a surprising amount of sexually assaulting Huey though. The first time they even play it for laughs.

Biden is just as likely to win/lose as Kamala is, as is Bernie, and so on.

Thanks to ballot access deadlines in several key states, this just isn't the case. It's Biden or Trump unless one of them dies in the meantime. If you tried to field Kamala as a replacement against a living Biden, you'd end up with a number of electors under faithless elector laws required to vote for Biden despite him having stepped down to make way for Kamala, possibly enough to trigger a one vote per state decision.

I’m still of the opinion that Trump has gone way too far and there will be so many people coming out to vote against him, that he’s essentially running against himself.

You aren't wrong about him essentially running against himself. It's entirely about whether or not people who would vote against Trump actually go out and vote for Biden (or his replacement should he die) in sufficient numbers.

But it's nearly always the GOP running against themselves, turnout is basically what decides US presidential elections. It's just writ lager with Trump.

It's also the most common rifle in the US, which is why it keeps showing up in various shootings that get media attention. They're not super great rifles for any application, but they're good for just about anything and designed to be modular so you can swap parts around if you need to.

That probably cost him a few votes, since he is now openly one of those gun grabbers who hates the 2nd amendment that the GOP claims all Dems are as a scare tactic.

And the comparatively recent shift in Sony policy about what content is acceptable is because who makes those decisions moved from the Japanese office to the US one and the US is full of various flavors of prudes.

Theres more important things than physical fitness and debate skills.

Sure, sure. That doesn't change that we've got a choice between an easily manipulable narcissist owned by proto-fascists and Russia and a case of elder abuse who at this point is lucky if he can string three coherent sentences without a teleprompter, or sometimes even with one.

Obviously we should all vote for the case of elder abuse, but the fact that this is the choice that we have is the core problem.

And yes, I needed to make reference to people being outraged at Biden being described as a "well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory" because holy shit were people angry at that characterization and holy shit would most of them be happy if that was the worst we could say about his mental acuity now.

Which is a real problem because his Vice President favorably compared Trump to Hitler and wants to ban porn

It wasn't a favorable comparison. He was a "Never Trumper" until Trump was the obvious nominee this time.

The choice is between a narcissistic buffoon who will do whatever his handlers want him to so long as he gets to look important and powerful playing along or someone who belongs in a nursing home rather than the White House that people raged about being called a "well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory" months ago because they thought it was an unreasonable because his admin was doing such a good job at damage control.

Given her argument for dismissing it was that the DOJ was incompetent and didn't use the right kind of prosecutor, that seems fitting.

Also convicted criminals people should not run for president. The corrupted courts made a new law, something they don’t have the power to do, where the criminals can run, explicitly the hitler felon.

No, they didn't. There's just nothing that requires a candidate for president not be a convicted felon, other than the willingness of people to vote for them.

The Constitution didn't establish a right to vote for men in general or any men in particular. It left the question of which citizens were allowed to vote fully up to the states.

Or to go deeper: The Declaration of Independence limited voting to landowners. The Constitution set no regulations whatsoever for which citizens could vote, leaving it wholly up to the states. There are various trends in state laws over time but nothing federal regarding who can vote (other than various immigration laws about who can be naturalized). Until the 15th Amendment: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

Technically, men did not have a federally protected right to vote until women did, the 19th amendment. Though state laws had expanded to give essentially all free white men the vote in every state shortly before the Civil War, but that's not from that federal point of view you're so worried about.

Except I couldn’t. Because a person being influenced by an artwork and then either intentionally or subconsciously reinterpreting that artwork into a new work of art is a fundamentally different thing from a power hungry machine learning algorithm digesting the near entirety of modern humanity’s art output

The big differences there are whether it's a person or a machine and just how much art one can digest as inspiration. Again, reference my example of a commission above - the main difference between a human and an AI making it is whether they look up a couple dozen examples of each element to get a general idea or 100 million examples of each element to mathematically generalize the idea, and the main reason the number of examples and power requirements need to be so different is that humans are extremely efficient pattern developing and matching machines, so efficient that sometimes the brain just fills in the pattern instead of bothering to fully process sensory inputs (which is why a lot of optical illusions work).

to churn out an image manufactured to best satisfy some random person’s text prompt.

At a level, "churning out an image to best satisfy some random person's" description is essentially what happens when someone commissions a work or when producing things to spec as part of some project. They don't generally say "just draw whatever you are inspired to" and hope they like the result. This is the thing that AI image generators are specifically good at, and is why I say it's about protectionism for a class of workers who didn't think their jobs could be automated away in whole or in part.

But we’re not just talking about automating someone’s job.

Except you are, you are just deeming that job "someone's dream career" as though that changes whether or not it's a job that is being automated in whole or part. Yes, it's going to hurt the market for commissioned art works and the like. Again, upset because those jobs are supposed to be immune to automation and - whoopsie - they aren't. Join the people in manufacturing, or the makers of buggy whips.

We’re talking about automating someone’s passion.

Literally no one is going to ban or forbid anyone from creating art because AI art exists.

While you can hunt with an AR-15, it’s not the best rifle for the task.

It's not the best rifle for any task. But it's a good enough rifle for most tasks, and between real AR-15s and the various clones they are cheap, in common calibers, and have accessories widely available.

Which is why it's the most common rifle in the US by a fair margin.

It being the most common rifle in the US by a fair margin is in turn why it's so often used in public mass shootings, as those are usually done with weapons of convenience rather than something bought for purpose. Likely also why the guy who shot Trump used one.

If a public mass shooter wanted the best gun for the job, they'd get something closer to a PS-90 (the civilian version of the P-90 which is a military rifle designed for urban combat).

In fact, women were not even considered full citizens then since they did not possess the right to vote.

Like most things, this was up to the individual states. Like anything up to the individual states, it was all over the place depending on exactly where you were. For example, at the founding women in New Jersey could vote, presuming they owned 50 British pounds worth of wealth because the wealth requirement was the only requirement New Jersey had for who could vote. Ironically, the spread of Jacksonian democracy (aka universal male suffrage) actually cost women in New Jersey the right to vote in the 19th century.

This is problematic at best and flat out dishonest thievery at worst.

You could say that about literally all art - no artist can name and attribute every single influence that played even the smallest effect on the work created. Say I commissioned an image of an anime man in a french maid uniform in a 4 panel pop art style. In creating it at some level you are going to draw on every anime image you've seen, every picture of a french maid uniform, every 4 panel pop art image and create something that's a synthesis of all those things. You can't name and attribute every single example of all of those things you have ever seen, as well as anything else that might have influenced you.

Whereas a work made by a person that is dirivitive or parody has actual work and thought put into it by an actual person.

...and this is the crux of it - it's not anything related to the actual content of the image, it's simple protectionism for a class of worker. Basically creatives are seeing the possibility of some of their jobs being automated away and are freaking out because losing jobs to automation is something that's only supposed to effect manufacturing workers.

Even if it is dirivitive it’s unique in some way simply by virtue of being made by a person.

Again, the argument is it's nothing to do with the actual result, but with it being done by an actual human as opposed to a mere machine. A pixel for pixel identical image create by a human would be "art" by virtue of it being a human that put each pixel there?

Part of it is that various states require that all candidates already be registered before now, so it's Biden or bust in those states - they can't swap him for a different candidate on the ballots there and they can't officially transfer any pledged electoral votes for him either if he wins.

There are enough such states to win Trump the election if they go to him essentially by default. And if they all went to Biden despite Biden stepping down then we'd be in a one vote per state election between the top candidates, which leads to a Trump win.

Mindjourney can make incredible images, but it can’t make art.

Mostly because you're defining "art" in such a way that being produced by MidJourney disqualifies it automatically.

...and I'm sure the Republicans would tell you it's because the liberal media and deep state work together to conceal cases of Democrat cheating.

You should occasionally check out right wing news, if only to grasp the alternate reality they present so you know what talking point to expect being parroted at you.