"AI" is always reserved for the latest tech in this space, the previous gens are called what they are. LMMs will be what these are called after a new iteration is out.
Begs the question of how you're substantiating any claims if you can't trust any information to base it on. Use a critical US report on China's economy if you want. A granular distribution of GDP by economic sector is the data you're asking about, a legit resource will serve you better than a random internet commenter. You'll find their service economy is where the percentage share of growth has been wherever you look.
In 1971 there was an oil crisis that put an end to the post-war consensus in the US, and the deindustrialization that followed was a shift to a more professional service financial economy. In China Mao had died and the Cultural Revolution was over. Deng opened up the country to capitalism through a Soviet-style manufacturing push and the creation of economic zones. So we have this relationship between the world's largest consumer economy and the world's largest manufacturing economy up to the present day. China's economic growth currently is outpacing other developed countries post-covid, and they represent a greater percentage of worldwide economic growth than the US, they have the single largest share of the world's economic growth.
People in the US who criticize China for polluting is incredibly ironic in this context. US capital interests are more than happy to exploit China's manufacturing sector, and China takes the blame for all the things that brings with it.
Yeah sometimes with this self hosting stuff, it's like wow it organizes my music, lets me play it, makes it available to other devices... so does my operating system.
There's also a conflict of interest that informs these notions, namely that "equality," especially in the economic sense, the one that was invoked by MLK Jr and popular in the Civil Rights era, represents a threat to economic arrangements. Those same arrangements, like employers who purchase services from the diversity industry, inform the type of content that will be most marketable for diversity consultants. A company isn't going to invoke notions of these things that would impact their bottom line. That's why disparity frameworks are the most readily adopted by capital, because the arrangement of individuals in the system doesn't alter or threaten the position of capital. The inverse example of this notion of equity would be, "everyone should struggle for a decent job and quality of life equally." You can even bring this framework to the Antebellum south where, "if we had more black slave owners..."
So I always raise this "yes, and" approach to this subject matter, because it's in the history of this racial order where the more radical and satisfying answers to it are.
He never stereotyped whites as a distinct singular identity that I can recall, it was always about their relation to maintaining inequality. One of his most impactful actions was convincing white and black unions to strike together, and that the fight for jobs and equality was one poor whites and blacks needed to share. In "The Other America" he constantly references poor white populations who share in the struggle.
MLK Jr never divided people by race like this, he thought that was one of the Three Evils plaguing American society.
Years ago someone left my employer abruptly, and on their desk was left a fancy vertical mouse. It sat there for a few days, and I kept glancing over, at first ambivalent, but as time passed the temptation increased. I debated the dilemma of becoming a vertical mouse person, was that really for me? Eventually I succumbed and thought hey it's worth a try, see what it's like to be one of them... pure learning opportunity...
Then something happened... I got used to it in about a half hour and in the first day my precision improved. A sudden urge came over me to tell all my coworkers, was I really becoming one of those people so fast? Trying to resist was futile and within a couple days I became a vertical mouse person, always wanting to tell everyone how great they are, constantly resisting the urge. I forgot what life was like with a horizontal mouse, and I never looked back.
Well I don't really have a point myself, the study has a point which is emphasizing that these neural processes measured aren't a direct representation of political opinions per se.
I guess my only relevant opinion aligns with what they are saying in better ways in the study, to which I would add that it gets dicey whenever people's thoughts/behaviors are reduced to something inherent about their biology. The authors of the study are putting in a good effort to avoid that reductive interpretation and explaining it very well. Biological indicators and many subsequent indicators are determined in complex ways by the conditions people are in and where they were born, etc.
Least chill comment I've seen on lemmy lol I thought I was on reddit for a second... It's a quote from the study you posted not everyone online is trying to debate you.
Although these results suggest a link between political attitudes and brain structure, it is important to note that the neural processes implicated are likely to reflect complex processes of the formation of political attitudes rather than a direct representation of political opinions per se. The conceptualizing and reasoning associated with the expression of political opinions is not necessarily limited to structures or functions of the regions we identified but will require the involvement of more widespread brain regions implicated in abstract thoughts and reasoning.
I'd say the 70s was the pivotal decade there with the oil crisis, the party was effectively over for the Democratic FDR post-war reality, and the economic anxieties resulting from deindustrialization began to have impacts in the rust belt. Mao's death effectively ended China's Cultural Revolution, and Deng implemented economic reforms to open the country to capitalism, with a huge industrial push and creation of economic zones. While labor power in the US had achieved a great deal in to the 60s, the Taft-Hartley Act from back in '47 kneecapped the ability for labor to fight the death of the US industrial manufacturing core. Because of course capital is gonna capital, and if they can't exploit workers as well domestically they can in some other country. Especially when they use their hegemonic influence to keep other countries open to private capitalist exploitation, like arming fascist coups in even moderately socialist countries in the global south. The global fight against communism is a backdrop to all this.
And here we are today as these routes of externalizing the exploitation necessary to maintain this standard of living and consumer economy dry up, and this economic reality turns inward.
Balance is what determines the supply mix else everyone would just run nukes. Previous commenter is right about why fossil fuels are still used, we don't have tech to replace their capabilities, which are necessary for reliability of the transmission grid. Energy storage is an area of huge investment right now because of this, with batteries and flywheel storage pilot projects to try and mature this technology. SMRs are another area of research. Programs like demand response to incentivize heavy consumers to change their usage patterns.
Without the ramp rate of fossils to respond quickly to grid conditions, there would be constant frequency drops and spikes across the transmission grid. Turbines would become out of sync from the frequency on the lines and things would start tripping and we would have a blackout. This is even more complex with unpredictable renewal integration where fossil becomes even more critical for its capabilities, while slightly less for its capacity.
fak u (it's been so long)