nednobbins @ nednobbins @lemm.ee

Posts

1

Comments

364

Joined

2 yr. ago

It's a bit more than "nobody".

https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/09/1154391

The problem is that the minority that is uncomfortable doing or saying anything is backed by half the worlds carrier fleets and thousands of nuclear armed ICBMS.

That would be true if he were secretly using those charities to enrich himself but there's no evidence of that at all.

There's an odd trend of labeling everyone with even the slightest advantage a, "nepo baby".

Nepotism is when you give friends or relatives special consideration for jobs or positions. As far as I know the only job Buffet ever had from a relative was working in his grandfather's grocery store. The closets I could find for Elon Musk was that he started one of his companies with his brother.

Elon's father was an engineer. That certainly put him in a comfortable position, particularly as a white engineer in South Africa but it definitely doesn't get you recognition from old money families. Buffet went to public school.

They both had advantages growing up but if we expand nepotism to include people like that, it becomes a pretty meaningless term.

Maybe.

There have been a number of technologies that provided similar capabilities, at least initially.

When photography, audio recording, and video recording were first invented, people didn't understand them well. That made it really easy to create believable fakes.

No modern viewer would be fooled by the Cottingley Fairies.
The sound effects in old radio shows and movies wouldn't fool modern audiences either.
Video effects that stunned audiences at the time just look old fashioned now.

I expect that, over time, people will learn to recognize the low-effort scams. Eventually we'll reach an equilibrium where most people won't fall for them and there will still be skilled scammers who will target gullible people and get away with it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_adversarial_network

It's not just the sexual aspect that makes people uncomfortable.

Many people view it as childish. Children are really into their stuffed animals and love playing dress up. There is nothing inherently wrong with enjoying activities normally associated with children but other adults tend to look down on it.

Some furries like to talk about their fursona as a spiritual extension of themselves. Many people associate that kind of language with crazy old hippies.

Haha. Maybe.

I doubt the VCs will provide much followup funding if they can't control the code base but weirder things have happened.

There are a lot of scams around AI and there's a lot of very serious science.

While generative AI gets all the attention there are many other fields of AI that you probably use on a regular basis.

The reason we don't see the rest of the AI iceberg is because it's mostly interesting when you have enormous amounts of data you want to analyze and that doesn't apply to regular people. Most of the valuable AIs (as in they've been proven to make or save a bunch of money) do stuff like inventory optimization, protein expression simulation, anomaly detection, or classification.

It's otherwise a fairly well written article but the title is a bit misleading.

In that context, scare quotes usually mean that generative AI was trained on someone's work and produced something strikingly similar. That's not what happened here.

This is just regular copyright violations and unethical behavior. The fact that it was an AI company is mostly unrelated to their breaches. The author covers 3 major complaints and only one of them even mentions AI and the complaint isn't about what the AI did it's about what was done with the result. As far as I know the APL2.0 itself isn't copyrighted and nobody cares if you copy or alter the license itself. The problem is that you can't just remove the APL2.0 from some work it's attached to.

It isn't even the root of the indo-european languages and the Indo-European languages are just one of many language families around the world.

Source I am from Austria. :)

That's inherent to the idea of theft. We judge thieves based on their thefts.
It's irrelevant if they also happen to have a bunch of stuff they didn't steal.

A few stolen artifacts corrupt the legitimacy of the entire exhibit.

Allies are only ever allies of convenience.

The US was allied with both the USSR and China for the sake of convenience. Right after that war the US allied with its erstwhile enemies, Japan, Germany and Italy for the sake of convenience. The Marshal Islands maintain diplomatic relations with both China and the US for their own convenience.

BRIC (South Africa joined later) was initially coined as a description of quickly emerging economies by a Goldman Sachs economist. Since then it's become an actual trading block that coordinates on economic policy. It's very obviously dominated by China but the other members see advantage in joining a club that's not obviously dominated by the US.

The combined GDP of BRICS nations now exceeds the combined GDP of the G20. If it's a joke, it's a pretty successful one.

I don't think it would even have to go that far.

It's mostly that Harris needs to be able to present credible red lines. Right now, the perception is that Israel can get away with absolutely anything.

Anything to break that perception it might be enough. A light version might be something like, "Every time X happens, we'll delay weapons shipments by a week while we investigate." That's not much and it might not even change Israel's behavior but I suspect that just articulating some policy and sticking to it would be sufficient.

In terms of her affect on the Green party, those numbers make it look like she's fairly run-of-the-mill. Her first one was low and later on she posted numbers similar to more famous candidates.

I did a quick search on where those candidates are and it seems that many of potential Green party candidates are in swing states. It also looks like many of them are specifically siding with them because of their stance on Gaza.

That suggests that she's just fine for the Greens and is likely even helping them. She's a problem for Democrats because there's an assumption that those voters would switch to the Democratic ticket if they don't vote Green.

My question was more along the lines of the "(not so) the great (wo)man" hypothesis.

Let's imagine that Jill Stein was permanently abducted by aliens. What do we think would happen?

Would the Green Party just collapse?
Would the former member just join the Democrats?
Would they start a new party?
Or maybe someone new would take over who could do a better job?
I think we'd likely just get someone who's functionally equivalent.

Is she really responsible for the problems of the US Green party?

As near as I can tell the EU Green parties had a different trajectory. They initially started winning seats in parliaments on purely environmental platforms. Those MPs actually started pushing green agendas in various parliaments. That, in turn led to more people voting for them. Eventually that had to adopt policy positions beyond the environment and they tended to be pretty left.

The US never had Green party members in a position where they could actually do anything useful about the environment. That means they could never fulfill their primary goal in the US. So when they tried to branch out the same way the EU Green parties did, they just turned into a vague hodgepodge of leftists ideas.

Is there any suggestion that Jill Stein's replacement would have any chance of saving the US Green party?

If we're just talking math, triangles can be defined in terms of 3-element subsets of all 3 (A)ngles and 3 (S)ides:
SSS - unique
SAS - unique
ASS - may be unique depending on the lengths of the sides
ASA - unique
SAA - unique
AAA - infinite solutions

Maybe someone cleverer than me can figure out how that maps on to love and gender.

It kinda looks like your arguing that voting doesn’t work.

Maybe.

Kessler Syndrome doesn't impact the ability to produce or launch satellites.
It impacts the ability of satellites to function in orbit but it's not a fixed limit.

Humans have a pretty good track record of developing technologies that break through insurmountable theoretical barriers.

strains credibility

Not sure why.
Security professionals are constantly complaining about insiders violating security policies for stupid reasons.
Security publications and declassified documents are full of breaches that took way too long to discover.

The Navy may have great security protocols but it's full of humans that make mistakes. As they say, if you invent a foolproof plan, the universe will invent a better fool.