Womble @ Womble @lemmy.world

Posts

17

Comments

712

Joined

2 yr. ago

The US some how manages to spend more on public healthcare per person than countries with universal coverage, then spends even more than that on private healthcare on top.

If you dont understand the difference between trying to start by winning a mayoralty of a town of 10,000 people then some state legislature seat and trying to win the president of the USA without an existing power base I dont know what to tell you. I cant break that down to being any simpler for you as to why starting with the later before you've managed the former is pointless.

So do what I literally said before, build up a party, take places that you have a realistic chance of winning, build your parties power base and then take larger constituencies. That's how a an organisation actually interested in political power would go about it with multiple years out. Not trying to jump to the highest level office in the land where the mathematical reality of the system insists that that one of the top two candidates will win.

Ah yes I'd forgotten about all those elections in a winner takes all system where a candidate was polling at 1% the day before election turned out to win it. Your obnoxious posting style really helped me remember that absolutely true fact.

So why dont you just vote for yourself? Clearly thats the only way to agree with your candidate 100% and it clearly doesnt matter to you what the odds of winning are.

If you want to get an actual left winger into office in the us you have exactly three options, entryism into the democrat party and pushing a left winger in the primaries (ie bernie, maybe AOC in the future), building up a new party starting by taking local offices in progressive places until the dems either have to pivot to the left or are replaced by you, revolution.

Ignoring reality and voting for a third party in the presidential election is nothing more than posturing at best and actively enabling the worst elements in society at worst.

• Lemmy is no better or worse than Reddit
• Pixelfeed is significantly better than Instagram
• Mastodon is much worse than Twitter

Seems to me pretty much an even spread of how good the names are

Sure but i can run the decensored quants of those distils on my pc, I dont need to even open the article to know that openai isnt going to allow me to do that and so isnt really relevant.

To be clear, its not that twitter is too fucked up for nestle to work with, they absolutely would if they thought it would benefit them. Its that twitter has become so toxic that they see advertising there as a net negative.

If they had stuck to that I wouldnt have an issue with it, but they broaden it out to

I’m tired of calling people out again and again for dumping on PHP.

I’m tired of people dumping on Windows, that most popular operating system, because it’s not what we choose to use

I dont see critising PHP or Windows as a problem, both have serious faults. The argument put forth here conflates two things: That critising a language is bad (fine IMO), critising people for liking a language is bad (not fine). We should welcome the former while insisting the later isnt acceptable.

So should we be entirely uncritical of whichever language people choose to use because it might be percieved as offputting to someone? Would someone writing in brainfuck or whitespace or FORTRAN66 for an actual project (i.e. not just for their own interest) not be subject to critisim for that choice?

Discussion of how languages have bad features and what they could do better is how progress gets made and languages improve over time. I personally find it annoying the level of recent dumping on python that seems to be popular, but they often have a point. Those points are useful in figuring out either how to make those languages better or how the next language to be created should be. Labeling that as problematic and "actively participating in the exclusion of women from STEM" seems to me to be a huge reach.

Because you used Russia and USSR interchangeably in your argument

It worked well against Russia and the Soviet Union, but it’s been my claim for years now, that this won’t work against China anymore. Because China is way more advanced now than the Soviet Union ever was by comparison for the time

...

China has 10 times the people Russia has

You first say what worked again Russia and the USSR (which is a bit weird, like writing new york and the USA) wont work against China, then say its because China has 10 times the pop of Russia.

I dont fundamentally disagree with you, but it should be pointed out that the USSR and its proxies in the Warsaw pact had about 0.4 billion people in 1980 to the PRC's 1 billion. So it wasnt anywhere near 10x the size. The important difference IMO is that china has opened up economically, whereas the USSR stayed closed, and are acting out Lenin's maxim of "the capitalists will sell us the rope to hang them".

There definitely should be more transparency around exactly what is being done, but assumng they are not twisting the truth about it then:

Officials say it is complementary to existing systems, and flags correspondence which is then reviewed by agents to determine whether a correspondent is in fact potentially vulnerable. The DWP said no decision was made by the AI and no data processed by it.

That seems like a perfectly reasonable use case to improve efficiency while keeping people making the decisions.

Not everything has to be about the USA.

It would be interesting to give these scores a bit of context: what level would a random person off the street, a history undergrad and a history professor score?

See i understand that one, LLMs dont work with letters they work with tokens which are more like Chinese characters. So even though they display letters to the end users the models themselves dont see them which is why you can get dumb mistakes like that.

The chess thing is strange though, its not like there is a lack of writing on chess so I do wonder where it got that idea from.

Huh, interesting, it does do it with 4o mini but not with 4o. I stand corrected.

Yeah thats not real, if you ask chat gpt it gives the obvious answer of you have to look at the pieces. Either its shopped or its leaving off previous messages where the user has deliberately conviced it that it is cheating.

Yes, I'm sure random commentors on the internet know better than the NSA what an appropriate use of AI is when it comes to cyber security...