kromem @ kromem @lemmy.world

Posts

6

Comments

1,656

Joined

2 yr. ago

I wonder how much of this is to provide a plausible paper trail for parallel construction to hide illegal signals collection in legal proceedings.

"No your honor, we didn't find this out because of domestic spying programs, it was from this data we bought from Google."

While you are welcome to your take, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and here's the writer/director responding to that very scene:

Li: Speaking of those video clips, let’s talk more about the ending. Can you tell me about the decision to have the Barbies and Kens reach, not a definitive solution, but kind of a détente? President Barbie, played by Issa Rae, does not allow Ken a seat on the Supreme Court. They’re still figuring things out.

Gerwig: We’re all still figuring things out—that’s part of it. But the only thing I could ever give anyone is that they’re all still in the mess. Maybe it’s a little better for the Kens. You don’t want to tell people how to watch things, but at the end of the movie, the production design incorporates some of Ken’s fascinations into Barbie Land. Like, the perfection is not as beautiful as the thing that started blending everything together. I remember when we went to shoot the finale, when we all walked on set, we were like, This is the most beautiful it’s ever been.

• Greta Gerwig’s Lessons From Barbie Land

"Arbitrary social constructs that have previously existed have previously existed, which is why we should carry them forward."

Most of the reason people think this is because they don't know history and the periods and cultures where women were badasses prior to patriarchal rewriting of history.

Cultures like the Minoans where women were paid equal to men for the same work, could divorce on their own, and seemingly felt safe from sexual violence given they walked around in outfits that accentuated their exposed breasts. A culture that had indoor plumbing over a thousand years before the Romans.

People like Nefertiti, the only woman in the history of Egypt depicted in the smiting pose who upended the entire religion and lines of succession such that there's a pharaoh who follows with the only apparent qualification being that he's married to her firstborn daughter. Had she been successful with the proposed second marriage to the Hittites it would have led to the largest kingdom in the region's history - and without a single battle.

Or Paduhepa, the "great lady" of the Hittites in the time of Ramses II who was not only conducting diplomatic relations with other countries but was co-signing treaties with her husband.

Or Deborah (meaning 'bee'), the prophetess and leader of the Israelites early on. Tracing back to a period when the archeology of an apiary in Tel Rehov indicates there was potentially awareness that the hive was ruled by a queen.

Most people, men included, have a false picture of history as one in which men built great empires that spanned the world. But this ignores survivorship bias and the great filter on our history by patriarchal revision of earlier norms. We only know of all of the above because of relatively recent archeology. Nefertiti was stricken from kept Egyptian history. Deborah precedes Asa deposing his grandmother the "Great Lady" and Josiah's banning of goddess worship. We're only left with the scraps and poorly covered up remnants of greatness for women, while male accomplishments are hyped up or literally stolen - such as Amenhotep II taking credit for an earlier female Pharoh's accomplishments and he and his father trying to erase her from history.

So we're operating from what's effectively misogynistic propaganda treated as a blueprint carried forward and reinforced in the historical record. It's not "how it's always been" at all. It's just how it's been recorded as having been by one side.

Counterpoint - men need to be less hung up on gender.

There's plenty of liberal spaces for people even if not exclusively for men.

As a guy, I don't need a sign outside saying "Open for men" to know I can go into a store, just "Open" suffices.

While there are aspects of my life that are informed by my biology and its social construct, it's one of the least defining aspects of who I am as a person. I don't need it specially recognized.

I'd much rather live in a world where there's spaces for "people who like RPGs and fantasy" or "people who like tech" over "people who identify as male." I have a ton in common with the former two, irrespective of gender identities, and very little in common with the latter other than fairly superficial things.

"Hey, pee standing up? Me too! We have so much in common we should be friends. Oh, you want to meet up at the bar to watch the latest hockey game? Yeah, that sounds...fun..."

The very idea of a "liberal space for men" is antithetical to my sense of liberalism. We should be liberated from arbitrary notions of identity, not reinforced into them.

While this is true, it's also true that pendulum swings can go further in the opposite direction than equality.

While a trite example, in the recent Barbie film, at the end when things are going back to the seemingly good way, the men in Barbieland ask if they can have a seat on the supreme court and are told no, which is then explained as Barbieland being a mirror to the real world such that as there's increased equality in the real world then equality for men in the mirror would increase.

Apparently the writers weren't familiar with the fact there's four women on the supreme court right now and a woman has been on the court since 1981 (around twice as close to the creation of Barbie than to the present day).

Even in the context of its justifiably imbalanced equality it failed to be proportionally imbalanced.

There's interesting research around how the privileged underestimate the degree to which the good things that happen to them are because of privilege, but that at the same time the underprivileged overestimate how often the bad things which happen are because of bias. In theory both are ego-preserving adaptations. But it also means that either side is going to have a difficult time correctly identifying equality from their relative subjective perspectives.

It really depends on what would be happening in the military and intelligence services.

I don't think people really understand just how much a civil conflict would be a war of information as opposed to a war of arms.

If things got bad enough domestically that laws like the Patriot Act were expanded and agencies that haven't been supposed to operate domestically suddenly could, and those agencies were still 100% under government control, you'd have vans (or simply drones) taking out domestic terrorists in the middle of the night right before the day they were supposed to organize to kill and terrorize their neighbors.

The US could become an almost unthinkable police state under the control of a government like China's or if we had a Stalin-esque administration.

This is the part that Y'all Queda don't fully grasp. They aren't hiding out in caves in Afghanistan or air gapped in Pakistan. The only thing keeping them safe from the monsters under their bed that they largely don't realize are there is the very government they think would be such a bright idea to try to overthrow. And if that government saw them as enough of an existential threat to unleash the monsters on them, well, they'd have quickly succeeded in overthrowing the US government in a sense, but wouldn't be around to see it.

AI is not contributing creatively though, programs do not create.

You and I will have to agree to disagree on that Kool-aid, and it's that disagreement which is core to the model provider being liable for introducing copyright infringement.

On the other side (Yahweh) an interesting read is this particularly in light of the theft of Isaac's blessing from the eponymous founder of Edom by the guy whose name later changes to 'Israel.' (A birthright that's the only place the male form of "Great Lady" appears and a blessing which referred to "may your mother's sons bow down to you" - weird for a patriarchal blessing...)

If it's contributing creatively to your work, yeah, totally.

If you ask Photoshop fill to add an italian plumber and you've been living under a rock for you life so you don't realize it's Mario, when you get sued by Nintendo for copyright infringement it'd be much better policy if it was Adobe on the hook for adding copyrighted material and not the end user.

A better analogy is: if you hired a graphic designer and they gave you copyrighted material, who is liable?

Not really. The version of God depicted in the Bible is likely several different gods merged together.

Yahweh is of somewhat unknown origin/character - one of the more interesting theories was a metallurgy god, though it is likely that he was originally from the Shasu. Personally I think his role early on was as a consort god to Asherah and over time he became the main event and then sole event as the more matriarchal aspects faded in response to reforms.

El gets mixed in, who was a storm god.

Then you also have Baal even through they pretend he's always been the enemy - theomorphic names in early Israelite graveyards were 30% based on Baal, and it's possible Baal influence led to the Yahweh/Anat in Elephantine.

It's not really something simple enough to be laid out in a comment.

Munchausen's by blowjob

As has been pointed out before, Lemmy is mostly people who up and left Reddit.

There's a variety of different archetypes that did that.

And it explains a lot of the more head scratching experiences I've had here.

There's money (and more importantly, survival) if they can ensure liability of Xerox for infringement on the use of their centralized copiers.

There actually isn't survival as a company even if they succeed on training but not the other, which I don't think they realize yet.

As an aside, one of the worst legal takes I read on this was from a GC at the Copyright office during the 70s who extensively used poor analogies to copiers to justify an infringement argument.

Ok, so more "the God they believe in was an immigrant."

There's so many different conceptions of God as a concept/proper noun that it's otherwise a bit ambiguous.

But indeed, Matthew's Moses-ification of Jesus would have made him an immigrant.

What this is really saying is "you people are insane, please stop writing us about it, we're aware, and fine, we're "looking into it" even though we were aware of this for a few years now and already checked with legal that there's nothing we can do unless the creators really messed up in some way."

Huh? Or are you implicitly referring to the belief that Jesus was God and thus in turn his alleged flight to Egypt?

Because if referring to the concept of a generalized monotheistic deity/creator, this comment makes zero sense.

"Useful idiots" was the KGB's term.

Copyright law is the right tool, but the companies are chasing the wrong side of the equation.

Training should not and I suspect will not be found to be infringement. If old news articles from the NYT can teach a model language in ways that help it review medical literature to come up with novel approaches to cure cancer, there's a whole host of features from public good to transformational use going on.

What they should be throwing resources at is policing usage not training. Make the case that OpenAI is liable for infringing generation. Ensure that there needs to be copyright checking on outputs. In many ways this feels like a repeat of IP criticisms around the time Google acquired YouTube which were solved with an IP tagging system.

Yes to being in the room!!! The stories of the pets looking around for their best friend in their last moments breaks by heart.

Also, for those that don't know, there's in-home services for this so it doesn't need to be in a strange place for them.

(And how fucked up that in most places we have that for our pets but not our sick loved ones.)

I mean, isn't this kind of keeping with the theme of US civil wars so far?

If I was creating a civil war bingo card based on history of civil wars in the US, "starts over how people with darker skin can be abused or not" would certainly have been on it.