frozenspinach @ frozenspinach @lemmy.ml

Posts

1

Comments

130

Joined

9 mo. ago

based on their political beliefs

Nazism being the political belief.

And how are they defining alt right?

It's music tags that literally have phrases like nazi or white power in the phrase.

Yeah I like being able to opt-in to a specific block list, or having it enabled by default but individual instances can disable it (more to neutralize bad faith arguments from trolls who want to normalize nazism), even though I want it effectively banned.

It's like 6 or 7 tags that all have the word "nazi" or "white power" in the tag. As long as Sam Hunt tracks are not being encoded that way he should be good.

Nextcloud on a paid plan from some company (e.g. Hetzner) or, if you've got the stones for it, Nextcloud self-hosted.

The reddit account has a username with the number 88 in binary, which led some to speculate its a nazi (88 = HH = Heil H*tler) dogwhistle, to which Andy Yen says its his year of birth 1988. Kinda weird, but he could just be that clueless, who knows

I mean this part I give him a pass on. It was right for people reading him to raise an eyebrow, because political signalling like that does happen, especially in a context where he's making comments like he made. But in this case it was just a nothingburger.

It doesn't make his "wasn't intended to be a political comment" excuse any less gibberish though.

I have been defending Andy Yen’s idiotic comments because he’s not American and doesn’t understand the hyper-reactive nature between US Americans and US politics

And I could see the point, kind of, even though it strained credulity on substance. He seemed more confused to me than die-hard partisan. But it's really hard to square what was effectively a blanket statement endorsing R's with his subsequent comment that it "was not intended to be a political statement" (paraphrase).

That was.... honestly a great explanation. Thank you.

But goodness what a deep and context specific cut.

so basically what he’s saying is that he’ll cling on to power.

I find this to be a disingenuous framing. He clearly made that comment in service to the greater good of Ukraine, and I don't know how being the leader of a nation facing imperial domination and constant war and death is something anyone would want to 'cling' to other than out of a sense of duty to the people he is representing.

I'm not sure I agree with that interpretation, but that's at least an explanation for why they might be at cross purposes. Can anyone else who's upvoting the meme explain what this is about?

Okay fair enough, but if that's the case, do you know what this meme is about?

I must be out of the loop. Are Linux apologists and tankies at cross purposes for some reason?

You said not a high budget, and yet everyone here is saying Framework even though the they are $900 to $1,000 at the low end. To me that is not budget.

Pine64 is affordable but maybe too slow to be a daily driver, unless you feel confident finding your way through ultralightweight software and the command line and can do most of your problem solving that way.

For other pre-built options, there's Starlabs and System76 but those are similarly priced to Librem and Framework.

Beyond that I might just research Windows laptops that are agreeable to being formatted.

If by dozens you mean 50,000?

I remember in the early days people saying that Lemmy wasn't succeeding. Very frustrating to hear because it was like the very early days. And look at it now!

A great way of re-framing it. A lot of how we tease out whatever intelligence an animal has is with some incentive. And sometimes we're comparing apples and oranges if we're making a comparison where one side has more of an incentive.

If the anomalous outliers of human intelligence are inventing calculus or formulating germ theory, what are the equivalently anomalous crows?

Where is Tank Man now? I bet he's a celebrated civil rights icon who freely walks the streets, right? I did see some reporting suggesting he was executed by firing squad but that can't be right.

Oh and I think that’s the root cause for your post: there can not be a common agreement of those positions because they are axiomatic, as in fundamental definitions.

I think if we are stuck that way, we would really be stuck. But I think we can appreciate intelligence as dynamic and not as a question that's tied to axiomatic definitions. You see this in related fields, e.g. we don't have a definition of consciousness, but research is about closing in on a definition, and we are able to add to our body of knowledge in meaningful ways. There's fascinating new studies suggesting insect consciousness is plausible, for instance. Cancer is not one single thing, but there's still cancer research, and so on. So we sometimes know based on representative instances, e.g. whatever it is, it's like that.

It's convenient to frame it merely as a matter of definition, because that means there's no overarching truth, there's just "by human standards, THIS is intelligent but by crow standards THIS is.." But unfortunately I think cross domain comparison, or clusters of related features (family resemblance) is real enough that there's There there, more like cancer or consciousness than relative definitions.

How much of that do you think is inherent intelligence and how much is nurture?

We spend years helping and teaching our offspring the most basic of functions and how to communicate. We’ve taught other species very basic communication skills as well, like Coco the gorilla. Hell, my own dog knew how to tell me when he had to pee. And that’s nurture, but it does speak to a certain potential.

Breaking this off for a separate comment. I want to reply on two levels. First and most importantly, I think there's probably an integral relation between the two (the capability of responding to training and socialization is an aspect of intelligence, and being able to learn is an important part of being intelligent and may very well be something we are born with).

So I wouldn't want to tie the whole question of intelligence to the idea that we're supposed to adjust for X amount of nature and Y amount of nurture, and then look at animals in light of those adjustments, scaling down how much we credit humans because we benefit from social knowledge. Our capability of growing our intelligence through training and socialization is a reflection of our knowledge and we get full credit for that. Crows have been around for between 17 to 30 million years(!!) enough time for the fruits of socialization and training to materialize, if the ground were fertile for it. Apes are 25 million years, possums curiously are 65 million years, bears 20 million years. Humans depending on where you start, have been here for 300,000 years, or maybe 2 million if you want to go back to homo erectus, yet we leapfrogged everybody.

So that's the first level. But the second level is just a direct answer: humans go through a practically supernatural level of language explosion between ages 2 and 3, and start retaining new words at nearly impossible speeds, something like 20, 30 new words a day at its peak. A 3-year-old can hear a new verb in one sentence and apply it correctly in another, something that stumps even the most language-trained non-human animals. Apes in controlled conditions can take months to learn, and even then through rote repetition.

I think it's just getting too lost in the weeds to look at a dog needing to go outside and pee, and set that side by side with linguistic capability that gave rise to human civilization like an ounce of one is equivalent to an ounce of the other. And here's the thing: I do think it's impressive, dogs especially are social creatures, apes learn sign language is special. And I don't think anyone is losing sight of that when they say humans, at the end of the day, still do it better.