antonim @ antonim @lemmy.dbzer0.com

old profile: /u/antonim@lemmy.world

---

Read more

Posts

59

Comments

527

Joined

2 yr. ago

They also have no blood or blood vessels, just a little heart and blood-like stuff splashing around.

In an ideal society, IP laws would definitely not exist. The idea by itself is inarguably desirable.

But, more practically, IP laws should be abolished or reformed to accommodate the needs of the average creator and the average consumer. The two people who proposed this change are not average creators in the slightest, they're looking to benefit primarily their own class, the consequences for the other 99.99% are irrelevant.

A reform of this type should start at the very least with small and realistic steps. Can we e.g. reduce the absurd duration of copyright protection (author's life + 70 years)? Reducing it by just 20-30 years would be an incredible boon to human culture, and it would have zero serious negative consequences.

But they only talk about it in the most vague terms, no details or anything, and Dorsey doesn't seem to have actually described any of those other ways of compensation. They're just greedy megalomaniacs throwing ideas around.

TBH the impression I got from the greentexts that are posted on Lemmy and reddit is that they're very inorganic, I believe many of them are written just to be reposted on reddit.

Well of course lots of sites are kept up through sheer enthusiasm, but in this case I don't think either the 4chan userbase or the owner actually like the site a whole lot. (Though maybe I'm just projecting my own frustration after having spent too much time on that site.)

No, Hexbear was literally blocked in China.

8chan got taken down years ago, multiple reboots of it have appeared but IIRC they're all practically dead. So, not a likely candidate.

it could be the result of the forum running on long-unpatched software dating back to 2016.

It's widely known that the current site owner doesn't give a fuck about the site, and it's de facto been led by the moderator "rapeape". Sooner or later the site will die, financially it's probably worthless, and I wonder where all those people will go. Maybe they could make a federated imageboard...

The issue that the article raises is legitimate, but actually looking through their archives is baffling, they're really just hellbent on shitting on WP. One of their most read articles says Wikipedia should attract more female editors by reducing the anonymity on the site and making it more like a social media platform. What the hell? https://wikipediocracy.com/why-women-have-no-time-for-wikipedia/

The iPhones must flow.

I wonder if he's ever actually enjoyed and been sincerely enthusiastic about video games, or he's just playing them in a pathetic attempt to come off as cool and attractive to younger generations.

but instead of finding a path toward healing

You might even say, he's ended up on a... path of exile.

The way it does math is mostly as people have already assumed - approximating instead of doing it "manually". It's 2025 and at this point absolutely nobody should be surprised that AI "confidently describe[s] the standard grade-school method, concealing its actual, bizarre reasoning process".

As for poetry,

Here, the model settled on the word "rabbit" as the word to rhyme with while it was processing "grab it." Then, it appeared to construct the next line with that ending already decided, eventually spitting out the line "His hunger was like a starving rabbit."

this is exactly how many poets write rhymed poetry too, it's not even remotely bizarre.

Still, it is interesting and good to see some concrete advancement in the study of AI reasoning. Hopefully it will contribute towards reducing the mystification of the whole thing.

I don't think piracy is legal anywhere.

It took them some time, huh?

Ehh sorry. I assumed/hoped you were talking about something more, that I wasn't aware of. I know of these protests, but they were not nearly intense enough to disrupt the system. Much of the urban youth that might have led the protests has left the country in the meantime too, so I wouldn't be surprised if the next round of recruitment is met with even weaker resistance...

Maybe I should just Google it but... do you remember any specific cases of this pushback?

The device knows what time it is at all times. It knows this because it knows what time it isn't.

Over time people’s memories of Obama have been more nostalgia for the times rather than an honest assessment of his actions.

Hell, at this point I've seen people being kind of nostalgic even about Bush...

If it suggests a connection, that’s synonymous with it being evidence.

No it isn't synonymous. Evidence is in principle unambiguous, whereas merely "suggesting" something could be more or less ambiguous. And I think that if you put down the raw facts on paper, i.e. described exactly what the document says, nobody could call that "evidence", and some number of people would probably agree that it might be only a "suggestion".

yes, my meme wasn’t 100% accurate

That heavily downplays its actual rhetorical effect. It's not accurate, but it makes a big attention-grabbing dramatic statement. In other words, it's in line with the usual methods of conspiracy theories based on bullshit reasoning.

Literally how many times have you brought up one simple typo

No more and no less than twice. Once in my very first comment, and second time in the previous comment. I mostly tried to ignore it, and I brought it up again to underline your general carelessness in treating of the issue. (And it's not a typo, it's a factual mistake, as you've said.)

you justified your lack of investigation into the CIA while also making statements about CIA history

There's a few issues here. I haven't simultaneously claimed to be a leftist and that leftists should be experts in world history and economics, while you did, so this contradiction is only your own. I don't think I'm an expert on history and I'm afraid I never will be. However, since I have indeed not investigated the history of CIA, that's exactly why I've made only minimal statements about CIA history, statements that should be correct regardless of various other information on its history. I said that: CIA supported some Hungarian dissidents in 1963 (as evidenced by the document in OP), and that CIA spread some radio programs in 1956 Hungary in order to stoke the revolt (as is widely accepted and found on Wikipedia). Everything else I wrote is conditionals based on reasonable assumptions and general knowledge that I am aware is not backed by more precise info on my part: yes, it seems perfectly reasonable that CIA has supported anti-communist movements (I haven't read about that in any detail but I've heard of that happening and it seems to be widely agreed on, so I didn't problematise it), and it could also be that it has done the same in 1956 Hungary (correct, as it has turned out).

This is simply intellectual carefulness. I'm not appealing to my expertise or wide knowledge, I'm appealing to reading the actual text carefully and extrapolating what can be reasonably extrapolated from it.

I have to be exactly right about everything

In your position, yes you kind of do (even you said: "If you’re a leftist, you have to be an expert on the history of the entire globe, as well as economics and all sorts of other fields." - high standards!). In general, I think everyone should strive to be maximally correct if they make a claim that hundreds of other people see and take for truth.

Try to approach this discussion with a bit more focus on the arguments and the actual words, and less on me and your own perspective in it. At every turn you're attacking me, making a stereotype out of me and claiming I've said things I haven't said in order to make our positions seem more symmetrical (you're trying to argue about what CIA did or did not do, but I'm trying to argue about whether this counts as proof of what CIA did), and conveniently ignoring my key point even when I spell it out in bold letters. Do you find that I've done the same to you, have I ascribed you statements and ideas that you haven't actually previously expressed? (Aside, of course, from the instance where I explicitly announced I would do it by ascribing you the position of those leftists who deride NYT, and in retrospect I shouldn't have done that because it was nothing more than a pointless jab.) At the same time, you seem to be very emotionally invested in this, downvoting me even while absolutely nobody else is reading this dialogue anymore. Cool it down, you don't have to respond to me, just please reflect on your own thinking/reasoning process once more, maybe sometime later when you have some distance from all this.

So you've at least silently dropped the accusation of my denial of CIA's involvment in anything. Good, that's some progress.

What an incredibly stupid line of argument.

Indeed, I did literally declare that it is based on stereotyping as a response to your making a stereotype out of me...

I saw something that suggested there was a connection between the CIA and the uprising

It sure might look like it if you ignore that the uprising happened 7 years earlier and that the organisation CIA supported wasn't based in Hungary. But it looks like you ignored that while reading the document, so the connection seemed much stronger than it really is.

and how compelling I considered the evidence to be

This is literally no "evidence", you yourself said it just suggested a connection, it isn't even close to evidence of it, and your meme straight-up says it was admitted.

If you understood it was an analogy, then nitpicking that the date used in my analogy “wasn’t even in the same decade as my source” is utterly irrelevant.

That's simply not the point I was going for, you've misread it or I should've been more clear. My point was this: your analogy used a time and place where the event is nigh impossible to be ascribed to any other entity than KKK and similar; on the other hand, the event of CIA supporting Hungarian dissidents that is described in the document did not happen in the time and place that is the focus of your theory.

but also, there is other evidence that does prove it. So my process seems pretty reasonable.

No, it is not even remotely reasonable to provide mere indications, weak proof, or non-proof, while you have easily available and already generally-accepted proof at your disposal.

criticizing me for not doing a thorough enough investigation into Hungary

Lol, "thorough investigation", that's not what I asked of you (again, my first comment: "Can’t you just Google one or two key words?"), you didn't even check Wikipedia and couldn't get the year of the revolution right, and, as I said above, made your whole conjecture while likely ignoring the actual content and context of the letter.

If you’re a leftist, you have to be an expert on the history of the entire globe, as well as economics and all sorts of other fields.

But you've just justified your lack of investigation into the topic by saying that you don't have any connection to Hungary, while simultaneously also making a statement on Hungarian history...

And in principle the discussion of whether something did or didn't happen has little to do with whether one is a leftist or a liberal or anything else. If I'm wrong about something, my politics matter fuck all, I'm simply wrong, and the actual facts will speak for themselves.

It’s incredible to me how ignorant people are of the CIA’s history

I'm not from the US and we didn't have a class on CIA history. What you expect, am I supposed to be utterly fascinated by your country's history and read about it extensively just so that we all can be as enlightened as you are?

even calling into question whether they were engaged in these sorts of activities in general

You’re the one who is deviating from the historical record accepted by actual historians.

But I literally haven't done that. If I have, show me the sentence where I did and I'll absolutely take it back. You're reading something into my comments that isn't there - just like you're reading events from 1963 US into 1956 Hungary.

The proper propaganda line you’re supposed to use here is

No, I'm not supposed to act like whatever stereotype/strawman you're imagining in your head. You can fuck right off with this sort of "communication".

Kinzer is a respected journalist who’s contributed to the NYT and the Guardian.

Thank you for the recommendation. However, if we're going to hurl stereotypes at each other instead of arguments, I can't help but point out that I've seen numerous Lemmy leftists claim that NYT is a liberal propaganda rag. So idk if that's actually a plus for Kinzer.

Bruh. That was a separate hypothetical.

What does this even mean? You brought it up as an analogy, I pointed out that the analogy has been picked to make your primary claim look more obvious and logical than it really is.

Great! So I’m right, it’s just like the meme. The only detail that’s in dispute is whether or not the document provides further evidence of involvement.

You might finally start to get it! You accused me of doubting CIA's involvment even though I literally pointed out to you that there is different, solid evidence they were involved! Like how stupid of a CIA-involvment-denier would I have to be to do that? And yet you're still failing to understand that this never was my main point anyway!

If I believe that the Earth is flat, but then I have a dream where I see that the Earth is actually round, and then I start believing that it is round, does that mean I'm "correct"? Technically maybe yes but based on wrong information/reasoning!