All that means is the left is primarily the populous option
Does it? This is in fact just as speculative; after all, it could also mean that the left is primarily the more logically-accurate sample. Alternatively it could mean the data sets from linguistics and critical-thinking books are inherently antithetical to the "poorly educated" conservatives (Trump's words, not mine). Besides, I venture a guess that if this data is pulled from the vastness of the internet that includes the likes of 4chan, facebook, breitbart, fox news, and so on... Then I'm going to take a wild guess and say that the conservative sets are pretty well represented.
Not that they're perfect, but yes, it all depends on the data sets through which they're evaluated. Nevertheless, logic is logic and one of the easier things to parse for these machine-learning tools. Imperfect though they may, if they can code a Python application, then they can recognize that 2 + 2 != 5 just the same within linguistics.
Not the end-all solution, of course, but merely a diagnostic utility in the toolbox to help thwart fallacious thinking and gaslighting. This Software Engineer shall continue to use it absent of a better argument, thank you very much.
More hilarious when considering the US Military is an inherently socialist institution.
My sister and brother-in-law will go to the commissary, stay on base housing, get their paycheck from the US Govt., receive public Healthcare, and the GI Bill, then promptly go home and post on Facebook about how socialism bad.
Do you store any chemicals or new building materials in there whatsoever?
Chlorine does this to my feet when I open the container to add more to the pool. It's heavier than air, so wafts out of the container then "spills" over onto my shoes, causing a reaction with the moisture on my skin. Much healthy :))
It's like the token liberal coming on as a guest on Fox News. They're there to be a strawman to attack and mock. Anything they say can just be twisted into, "HuffingtonPost is an obviously biased liberal hack. But see? We're being fair!"
I've been using AI as a utility to analyze discussions with other users and to determine who has the objectively better argument. I have it compare fallacies used in both quantity and severity.
Particularly with Trump supporters it's no surprise the ratio is usually 3 or 4:1.
It could be used in this context against AI, too, because the directive isn't to persuade but to analyze logic.
Family. That's all. Use the remainder of my money to help fulfill some bucket list items for my parents, wife, siblings, and my kids. Try to write as much as I can and record as much as I can for my kids. Impart any wisdom I possibly can.
I simply wanted to clarify your position on Ukraine since you initially dodged. I am comforted that you recognize Putin's attempted genocide in Ukraine and that Trump is significantly worse for Ukrainian lives.
If you're asking me whether I'd prefer her to be the Democratic nominee, no. If you're asking me whether I'd vote for her again over a Trump re-run or some other fascist Republican like Vance, then yes, absolutely.
Good lord, my dude lol. If you couldn't infer what was meant from that but simultaneously exclaim I wish you were Bibi or some bullshit strawman (and then deflecting when challenged), I'm not sure I can take you seriously anymore.
Yeah. I never said I would stop.
And I never said I'd stop "carrying water" for Harris relative to the larger threat; the proverbial GOP elephant in the room.
Haha, what's with the strawman? Where did I say I liked Bibi? He's a war criminal and the direct perpetrator of said Genocide and I would've come down hard on Harris following the election just the same to break away. He and Putin can share a jail cell at the Hague.
I am glad we cleared up and agree on the fact that Harris was better than Trump in every conceivable way, no matter how marginally.
Oh? And do tell me on which issue Trump is better or the same for you as Harris? After all, you already said Harris was better for Palestinians than Trump.
Evidently better enough to have voted for her, so that's where it counts.
I cared enough to defeat fascism that I didn't undermine an imperfect alternative candidate that wasn't my ideal preference in order defeat said fascism. If only more came to the same logical, ethical conclusion.
Well, this is probably closest we'll see eye-to-eye on this so I'll leave it here. Our paths appear to diverge in terms of the political strategy in order to win against the right-wing propaganda machine and ensuring the worst genocider got in power. I don't think Harris wanted to be associated with Genocide and I don't think she holds any love for Netanyahu. But hey, I appreciate you voting for Harris and acknowledging that Trump is worse. Those two things are very important to me.
lennybird @ lennybird @lemmy.world Posts 6Comments 2,545Joined 2 yr. ago
Does it? This is in fact just as speculative; after all, it could also mean that the left is primarily the more logically-accurate sample. Alternatively it could mean the data sets from linguistics and critical-thinking books are inherently antithetical to the "poorly educated" conservatives (Trump's words, not mine). Besides, I venture a guess that if this data is pulled from the vastness of the internet that includes the likes of 4chan, facebook, breitbart, fox news, and so on... Then I'm going to take a wild guess and say that the conservative sets are pretty well represented.
Not that they're perfect, but yes, it all depends on the data sets through which they're evaluated. Nevertheless, logic is logic and one of the easier things to parse for these machine-learning tools. Imperfect though they may, if they can code a Python application, then they can recognize that 2 + 2 != 5 just the same within linguistics.
Not the end-all solution, of course, but merely a diagnostic utility in the toolbox to help thwart fallacious thinking and gaslighting. This Software Engineer shall continue to use it absent of a better argument, thank you very much.