logicbomb @ logicbomb @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

661

Joined

2 yr. ago

HOAs seem like they should be illegal. Having a contract in perpetuity that is attached to the purchase of property seems like it shouldn't be allowed. So it is not only bound to the person who originally signed, but to whoever purchases the relevant property afterwards, and that gives other people rights over you that can be changed afterwards and are only limited by their conscience.

I basically don't think you should be able to create a government by using a contract.

My comment was mostly about the stuff I mentioned in the second and third paragraphs.

I don't think you can explain this behavior as simply stupid and ignorant. There are plenty of stupid and ignorant people who didn't make the massive mistake of voting for Trump.

I think the most necessary thing needed to vote for Trump is a glaring personality defect. Bigotry is probably the most common. That's why the Republicans made such a big deal of trans people.

Other personality defects would be having an authoritarian personality, meaning you simply mindlessly obey whoever you see as an authority, like your church leaders. And complete lack of empathy, and extreme selfishness, and narcissism.

With the testimony against Trump from people who claim he raped them when they were children... Let's just say that if Trump was a Catholic priest, they'd have already moved him to a different country.

Maybe they can recycle me into a plastic spoon then.

There is exactly one person's life that Trump cares about, and that says everything that needs to be said about this topic.

Yes, at first it's weird to think that people join an authoritarian organization like the Catholic Church, ostensibly believe that if they don't follow its teachings that they will suffer an eternity of punishment, and then switch to follow a billionaire grifter.

But if you consider that churches teach you to obey without thinking for yourself, it makes a lot more sense that people get confused and start obeying the louder person, instead.

The article said:

Still no mention of the lives lost, not to mention what might have been done to avert the tragedy or what might be done to prevent any similar future catastrophes.

I'm trying to remember whether Trump has ever said anything that shows personal regret or a desire for improvement. All I can remember are the few times where he was asked a question along those lines and was completely unable to answer the question.

Ever since I saw Patton Oswalt's bit about Toto's Africa, I've found that I no longer even like the song. I think it's because his story seems completely plausible to me. I can believe Africa would put you into that state of mind.

I seem to recall that the issue with Trump is that something like 20% of his base absolutely won't vote for anybody else. They'll support him no matter what he says or does. It's truly a cult mindset.

I agree that individual change is important, but you have to go about it a certain way. Actually the way OP is phrasing it is pretty good. Let people understand that just eating less red meat is always better.

Because if the messaging is at all confusing, you'll get the kind of result you got during the start of Covid with the masks. It was always true that any amount of masking helped, but when you started to make it complicated, you got a lot of backlash and people completely stopped masking. And of course, with both Covid and red meat, there are people out there incentivized to make things complicated so that people give up. I think it really needs to be dead simple to work.

My big problem is not with individuals ethically trying to do the right thing, or about people trying to convince individuals to be ethical and to do the right thing.

My big problem is the amount of effort in this when it will have only small gains. In today's society, meaningful gains come from changes in government regulations and policies.

If you want people to stop eating as much red meat, get the government to stop providing subsidies to cattle owners. I have a money-focused relative who owns cattle only because of the subsidies. At least let the price of beef go up to its actual market value. You'd think that would be an easy sell for Republicans who believe in the free market, but they're the ones who want the subsidy the most.

Of course, then, you can add additional regulations and encourage environmental responsibility.

Forget the aliens part and the vacuum of space part. "Blob apes" isn't really a bad name for humans.

The biggest joke here is that he thinks his thesis will be worth something to other people at the time he's writing it.

Also, even the article mentioned this, but Amazon has always done this. For example, engineers can volunteer to help out wrapping presents at Christmastime.

An engineer can barely do these jobs properly and they aren't used to manual labor, so they work fewer hours than normal. And yes, it replaces their normal work.

And, these white collar workers are many times more expensive than normal warehouse workers. This only makes any financial sense because they are desperate for extremely short time workers during rush times.

This article isn't really news. Just rage bait.

Same thing happened with companies that used outsourcing expecting it to be a magic bullet.

Yeah, we need more info to understand the results of this experiment.

We need to know what exactly were these tasks that they claim were validated by experts. Because like you're saying, the tasks I saw were not what I was expecting.

We need to know how the LLMs were set up. If you tell it to act like a chat bot and then you give it a task, it will have poorer results than if you set it up specifically to perform these sorts of tasks.

We need to see the actual prompts given to the LLMs. It may be that you simply need an expert to write prompts in order to get much better results. While that would be disappointing today, it's not all that different from how people needed to learn to use search engines.

We need to see the failure rate of humans performing the same tasks.

Don't conflate promiscuity with homosexuality. There are plenty of gay people who are monogamous and who are no more likely to spread disease than anybody else. And there are plenty of promiscuous heterosexual people who are spreading diseases.

Also, you shouldn't apologize for this bigotry by saying it's subconscious. This is learned behavior.

It's always important in science to do the experiment or study, even if you're pretty sure you already know the answer.

Sometimes, the result will be surprisingly counter-intuitive. And other times, like in this study, it confirms what seems blatantly obvious.

What could it possibly mean when a man who identifies as heterosexual feels threatened by the mere existence of homosexual men? What could it mean???

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. Wikipedia calls a square a "regular quadrilateral," which seems like a decent enough definition.

Today I learned that when you make up your own inadequate definition, then it's easy to match the definition with something inadequate.