Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)AN
Posts
2
Comments
418
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • I'm not a master diplomat but this is negotiation 101: don't look too keen to negotiate, start from a position of strength.

    Trump's opening offer was to allow Putin to keep whatever he's managed to invade and, by most accounts, Russia is now gaining territory again. Plus, Trump is clearly not so keen to continue supporting Ukraine militarily and economically (not to speak of his stance on NATO) and in Europe we are weak, divided and also increasingly voting for our own small versions of Trump (Trumpets?). Put these things together and why would Putin get all chummy and sit down to negotiate now? He's signaling strength and taking a position of "YOU want to end this war, not me, so if you want me to stop, you better come begging and bringing gifts".

  • I don't think Musk would disagree with that definition and I bet he even likes it.

    The key word here is "significant". That's the part that clearly matters to him, based on his actions. I don't care about the man and I don't think he's a genius, but he does not look stupid or delusional either.

    Musk spreads disinformation very deliberately for the purpose of being significant. Just as his chatbot says.

  • I keep seeing news that the Russian economy is perfectly fine.... no, wait it's in shambles... no it's actually even better than before.... no, people can't even find bread.... no, sanctions are killing it.... and so on. And this is not even from different sources; different articles on the same (I hope reputable) sources.

    I know that it's hard to get a read of these things even when not in the middle of a war with lots of disinformation happening on both sides. And I also know that indicators of the economy are tricky to read and often in contradiction. But these swings are so extreme that I don't know what to make of these articles any longer.

  • Russia and Ukraine are two countries that have thrown everything they had at each other: from good soldiers, to inmates, to good people who'd probably never held a weapon before.

    At this point I imagine that having troops who are alive and actual trained soldiers, not emotionally and physically drained (if not outright mutilated) by years of fighting is a big advantage

    If I was taken from my home and suddenly sent to fight for my country, no matter how full of patriotic love I might be, one North Korean child with a knife would be enough to take me out.

  • I think I'm with him on this one. Replacing all the people on social with AI agents would give us back so much free time! And we could even restart socializing for real.

    Go on Zuckerberg, give us a Facebook made only of AI agents creating fake pictures of inexistent gatherings and posting them, so other AIs can recommend them and million of other AIs can comment on them!

    You are an unsung hero, Zuckerberg, but one day they'll understand and thank you

  • can confirm (source: am on the other side of the ocean and certified idiot). But this is beyond even my level of idiocy. The part on 9/11 is really the icing on this shit cake: he manages to pit two conspiracies against each other:

    • hey man, what are you doing with that hurricane? Today we are doing the "flying airplanes into towers" one, remember?
    • oh shit sorry, totally forgot that one! No worries, I'm just turning this thing off before it hits the coast
  • Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • I'm not sure we, as a society, are ready to trust ML models to do things that might affect lives. This is true for self-driving cars and I expect it to be even more true for medicine. In particular, we can't accept ML failures, even when they get to a point where they are statistically less likely than human errors.

    I don't know if this is currently true or not, so please don't shoot me for this specific example, but IF we were to have reliable stats that everything else being equal, self-driving cars cause less accidents than humans, a machine error will always be weird and alien and harder for us to justify than a human one.

    "He was drinking too much because his partner left him", "she was suffering from a health condition and had an episode while driving"... we have the illusion that we understand humans and (to an extent) that this understanding helps us predict who we can trust not to drive us to our death or not to misdiagnose some STI and have our genitals wither. But machines? Even if they were 20% more reliable than humans, how would we know which ones we can trust?

  • Most things to do with Green Energy. Don't get me wrong, I think solar panels or wind turbines are great. I just think that most of the reported figures are technically correct but chosen to give a misleadingly positive impression of the gains.

    Relevant smbc: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/capacity

  • and Trump would just... "your beer? Haven't seen it. There's just MY two glasses of beer here. A great beer, the greatest. My uncle invented beer, Fred Budweiser Trump. Great IQ, very good genes!"