TheFogan @ TheFogan @programming.dev

Posts

1

Comments

659

Joined

2 yr. ago

IMO I think the common thread of democrats policies... is they keep thinking if they put one foot in both camps, that they will get both camps.

So, on Gaza... they took the stance of. "let the genocide continue, send the weapons, but also send sternly worded letters".

Result: The stand with isreal crowd hears "The democrats don't support isreal". The stop the genocide people, hear they are still supporting the genocide. Result, everyone hates their stance.

Hence why musks superpac sent 2 ads, one to jewish areas pretending to be the harris campaign saying "I stand with palestine", and an ad to the muslim populated areas saying "I stand with isreal".

Same on the border, instead of announcing how BS the "Migrant crime" claims are, or how bad for everyone mass deportation is, she just said "I tried to give you everything on the border, you stopped me".

Phones is absolutely a valid point these days, IMO OS > web + web browser in terms of what you can get.

MS and google both know what porn you are looking at. What you buy from your PC etc... MS knows how much time you are spending playing games + has screenshots of all your encrypted conversations etc...

Honestly I disagree... From what I've heard from app developers etc... ads generate far less money than even $1 app sales. Now maybe that's the brokers etc... But there's also a reason why Hulu shut down their purely ad supported tier, and none of the big companies are leaning into that. Only "subscribe and get ads" lower dollar tiers.

I'm no super expert, but I think ads are still very inefficiant ways to make money... the profit per customer is very small even with the most privacy invasive blast you away with everything aspect. I don't claim to be an expert, but it appears to me an ad supported service needs around 100x more users to make the same money as a low cost service. However, in actual userbases it goes closer to 1000x when that offer is on the table.

because then things would just shut down... The poor suckers that don't use adblockers are what pay the bandwidth and hosting costs for those of us that do. If it becomes the default, things would either shutdown or go paywall.

I mean the concept is pretty simple, all they have to do is make whatever the content it is not play without the verification.

Now I do have to say, it does come down to what is the system we do want? We can agree we don't want intrusive ads. We can say that the paid for services are too expensive. But at the end of the day when we refuse to pay for the content, and then bypass the ads, we do leave content creation in a rough spot. We've kind of reached a point where we need a new system. Yet all we seem to do is try and find ways to break the existing one.

I mean I guess a food bank would have food already as well... They are both one time use consumable supplies so, whether they have them or not, they are going to have to resupply at some point.

Honestly I think the biggest issue in law enforcement in general... is human testimony has this kind of weight to begin with. This guy was convicted of murder... with apparently the entirety of the evidence against him being "a criminal said he did it".

Even if the penalty was JUST 20 years in prison, and death penalty wasn't on the table, that's so wrong to me. 1 man's word is not a reliable way to confirm anything. People have garbage memories, and can lie.

Agreed we can't tell which way the flip is... and that's kind of the crux of the issue... The evidence was unverifiable from day 1. So even if the death penalty was never on the table... this man had nearly 30 years of his life taken away... on literally one persons word, to top it off that one person was confirmed to be a criminal.

So yeah there's 2 major giant red flags to our justice system in this case. 1. The terribleness of death penalty to begin with. But 2. the idea of a single eye witnesses word having the ability to take decades of someone's life away,

Umm... is this post edited or something. I'm seeing

Donating canned goods to food pantries is like donating needles and syringes to a cancer research organization

I don't see the word "used" in it. So, it sounds like he's saying donating medical supplies to an organization that does medical research?

To which I'd say yes both seem helpful to an organization that helps people in need.

The point isn't that not voting for harris is really an option. the point is to actually encourage the party to do the right thing. Least so far the "uncommited" group has been on the elections that dont' matter, the polls etc...

Point is you need some level of power. You don't exactly have a bargaining position when you walk up to the officials and say "stop killing people or I'll vote for you anyway". I mean I get it, we live in a fake democracy... we're given the choice of someone who's bad on the issue, or someone who's worse on the issue.

Honestly on the whole I applaud Harris, she's actually at least paying lip service to hearing people out, and pushing for a cease fire. It's the least you can do, but it's more than biden did, and there's at least an inkling of hope she'll actually follow it up.

I mean that's kind of crazy hyperbole... RFK Jr, is still a crazy who only appeals to a tiny portion of people. Biden would continue to lose ground to trump, but I imagine he'd have probably held the popular vote, but remain losing in all the states that matter for the election.

Or turned off the monitor and turned it back on.

I do agree on the whole, It's the next phase of automation. The real problem stems from the fact that we hold onto the system where a tiny handful of people get the full benefit of the productivity, while the others are paid in time incriments which value goes down with demand, so as more jobs are automated or assisted (to allow more work with less people), supply demand devalues the labor.

Well it comes down to 2 problems though.

First and most obvious hitting that critical mass... before you hit it, everything is hell, you are stuck with BS laws, and you can't do anything about it. Your vote is worthless.

In my town this november there was one ballot issue... in short, it was summarized as "put a million dollars towards schools, build a new school on an unused empty lot owned by the school system, build a new sports field for one of the schools). Digging deeper that would be paid for by a proporty tax that would cost... up to 100 a year for people making over 150k.

So... the whole town was plastered in "vote no" signs, when I went to the polling place a guy outside asked me to "strongly consider voting no". I was one of the 17% that voted yes.

So that basically tells me... demographically we need an insane change for the politics of this area to be less stupid, and that's before factoring in that not only does it involve a HUGE change to reach 51%... but realistically we need more like 65-70% to counteract the inevitable gerymandering that will happen if we ever get anywhere close. I will be staying here, and I'd be happy to encourage all my progressive friends to stay and/or move here. But when it comes down to it, I'd be shocked if there is a swing in the next 50 years, and I certainly wouldn't encourage anyone in a group that is likely to be directly oppressed to move here.

But won't you think of the children!! Think of how many kids have never seen a poorly drawn penis and have to have their first experience looking down at a pothole.

I do wonder if anyone actually did say a charting on wanksy's city... (IE city claims that it had no influence on their decision to fill potholes, but it was aknowledged that some are getting filled. Realistically that should involve a test, Wanksy should have found 10 potholes, penis'd in 5 of them, quietly took note of 5 and put on his list... Then anonymously slipped that information to a journalist with instructions not to publish for 2 weeks. At which point he'd analyze the 10 potholes and report back which ones were filled.

My point is, there needs to be more scientific rigor with the penis drawings.

Honestly I haven't heard any of my right wing coworkers etc... talk about this particular company, but I have heard a lot of elon worship from them. IE I hear a lot of them talk about how he's gone so pro free speach with twitter. (and they tend to ignore me when I point out that he's censoring every bit as much as the old twitter, he's just nicer to the nazis and less nice to the left.

You don't have to worry about that, It's an Elon Musk owned product, he already solved that with TwiXer. He just has to make sure that Nazi's can send their propoganda to your brain, and then advertisers will stay very far away from the neuro link.

Point is it's a stroke of a pen to change the priority... One president or one DEA switch away. The supreme court upheld Roe V Wade which was why it wasn't important to codify it into law... until it was.

Well those aren't uniquely AI problems.

AI generated or human artwork created CP is also kind of debatable in terms of harm causing vs potential harm reduction. (IE the question is, does availability of fake CP in which no one is harmed in the making of it, lessen or raise the amount of actual offenders).

Misinformation, scams etc... all just as likely to happen via shops of cheap labor

The problems of AI that I believe this post is talking about, are the labor displacement issues, IE when AI gets good enough to outperform humans at tasks... how will the economy deal with unemployable people. Which is a specifically capitalism problem. IE the fact that work is based on supply/demand... and lowering the supply of work while keeping peoples demand of needing income... leads to people starving to death.

Sad how many people don't seem to get not persecuting people based on their race/religion/orientation, does not mean blindly protecting people who are doing terrible things.

Judge people not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. Which to be quite frank, Netanyahu's character does not appear very good.

Falling for implies it matters to them. They've discovered the weaknesses in the system. The supreme court has goals to take on issues that can't be demonstrated to negatively effect anyone, so in order to get the cases and overturn law they need straw plaintifs to give cases.