I feel that although there are many issues with how machine learning/"AI" is being used, there isnt really as much of an environmental issue as we are led on to believe. Many will write about how AI consumes large amounts of energy, but will not mention how data centers only make 1-2% of energy consumption worldwide, and most data centers arent focusing fully on AI making the actual percentage of "worldwide energy used by AI" much much smaller.
Alex avila actually argued this very well in his newest video essay, even showing that much of this worry about AI energy use is backed by companies with stakes in energy.
that being said, looking through the archives now, this account DID post an unfunny bigoted meme with the ifunny logo still on, which is pretty well documented muskrat behavior.
uhh... and what evidence do we have that connects this account to elon?
i mean im sure that elon was/is on 4chan given its a nazi hellhole(and honestly, he probably did all that "kekius maximus" bullshit a day after "joining" it.)
if we were to either replace all power on earth with nuclear, or replace all power on earth with wind, more people would die from- idk, falling out of wind turbines- then from deaths due to nuclear.
Fukushima had a fucking earthquake and a tsunami thrown at it, AND the company which made it cut corners. It was still, much, much less bad than it could have been and the reactor still partially withstood a lot of damage.
In the United States at least (and i assume the rest of the world) nuclear energy is so overegulated that many reactors can have meltdowns without spelling disaster for the nearby area. Nuclear caskets (used to transport and store wastes) can withstand fucking missle strikes.
Im not going to pretend that there arent genuine issues with nuclear, such as cost and construction time(*partially caused by the over regulation), but genuine nuclear disaster has only ever resulted from the worst of human decisions combined with the worst of circumstances.
Do i trust humans not to make shitty mistakes? No, with all this overegulation though i kind of do. Even counting Fukushima and Chernobyl, more people die from wind (and especially fossil fuels) then nuclear per terawatt of electricity production.
it’s weird that when the company does nasty shit, nobody names him as the head asshole in charge the way that other companies and ceos get handled.
hard to remember name (for americans, europeans, or at least me) i assume
compare that to "Spez" which is very, very easy to remember and plaster around as the one evil to blame for a systems behavior
the behaviors your describing dont seem "obectively" problematic whatsoever, but there are two things here that matter:
This goes against typical conservative ideas about gender roles (especially the more sexist conservative ideas)
There is a label for this behavior: "Transgender" This label both allows people to defend "trans people" as a group of people or category, but it also allows one to demonize the group and endlessly produce lies and propaganda about a group of people that is frankly pretty small. And importantly a group that holds no social or political power, meaning it is the perfect target for far right figures who want to sell the people a scapegoat. Honestly, you could argue the existence of this label(or maybe its prominence as an identity) is only the result of "normal" peoples need to have labels for behaviors viewed as "weird" or different from the norms. Our existence as "trans people" fundamentally makes us people different from the norm.
There are other reasons too though.
By the way, I am not saying that "the category transgender is oppressive and we should stop using it" but i do hope for a future where queer people live in such peace to the point where there is no need to rally behind labels, where we can just exist with our behaviors, being ourselves.
Im not saying anything against furries, I am instead stating that our ideas of normality are entirely socially constructed, meaning this bill could be applied to basically any behavior depending on your interpretation of what is "typical to homo sapiens"
I could, for example, state that it is normal for someone to be a furry, as humans have a long history of portraying themselves in similar ways. I could also say that a piercing is an "atypical" accessory not permitted by the rules. There is no such thing as normal. To call something weird is just to simply state that you haven't been exposed to it enough for it to qualify as weird for you.
Wow there sure is a lot of behavior and accessories not "typcal to homo sapiens" makes me wonder what the hell they even mean here by "typical", it's like calling someone "objectively not normal" while ignoring that your entire view on normality is based on what you have been exposed to. I am not a furry or a therian or anything, but the flaws in this law absolutely allow it to be applied to just about any "behavior or accessory"
I feel many of the examples you gave for "Form" dont even really fit. "Chairs" are an abstraction we created, so is the sensation of temperature (albeit this sensation is less absorbed, it is more automatic, fundamental, immutable compared to the concept of a chair)
I see life as reproducing emergence. I love looking at artifical life and emergence, its really interesting seeing all the different digital mediums we have created that have seemed to allow for compex evolving 'life' to emerge.
Seeing these "artificial life" simulations does make me see all that which only kind of fits into the definition of life. I have seen evolving organisms come out only because rules were created to give them a genome, death, and reproduction, but I have also see simulations made out of incredibly simple rules that produce complex evolving reproducing patterns.
It feels to me that "life" is just a line in the sand we have drawn, and this line exists only because stuff that falls into our "life" category are the best at reproduction and competition.
It is also my view that questions like these can be vague, leaving different people to understand the question differently, leading to them giving different responses.
I personally understood this as "is the concept of life an abstraction"
i have seen others hide prompts via small text and unicode characters that make invisible text. I imagine you could also use unicode characters that look exactly like normal characters, these characters then maybe messing with tokenization or something.
randomly choosing a random outgroup to collectively hate must be ironically funny sometimes(see: jokes about the fr*nch)
Genuinely there is no other reason. sometimes people will create justifications/other explanations for it but really its just absurdist humor with a pinch of tribalism.
edit: i should add though, usually this type of humor is meant to be ironic by most of its participants. the more i think about it, the more it seems this is more rude than funny.
do the clones also have the ability to "teleport" or produce a clone anywhere? because then it would be a truly shitty, world ending super power.