Trump ends speech to 'mostly boos' after going 'off prompter' and 'making fun of' his host
sparkle @ sparkle @lemm.ee Posts 0Comments 345Joined 1 yr. ago
sparkle @ sparkle @lemm.ee
Posts
0
Comments
345
Joined
1 yr. ago
No, it was imported from German. Frisian and Dutch have "lienwurd" and "leenwoord" too (also calqued from German)
No fair, this is uncalled for aggression towards Triangulum Galaxy dwellers!
That's not generative AI... it's not really the same thing. The US military has been using machine learning for like 6 decades by this point and AI for 7, and it's been a part of anti-air tracking / ballistics computers for a while. Many modern military vehicles have relied a LOT on AI for a really long time, at least when it comes to weapons systems (targeting and ballistics especially) and important warning systems. Plus AI is pretty important for the US military's logistics.
It's an extremely important technology for the military to research, even in scenarios where it's far before it's really "ready" for practical use, in this case replacing human pilots with AI.
It quite simply depends on which GPUs you're looking at. Since you already have a 3070 (which works fine on modern games), I can only imagine you're looking at the highest end GPUs available right now?
Almost as if the same word can mean multiple different things
the dog was too deaf to hear the oinks silly
this reminds me of a post i saw last night on wallstreetbets of a doctoral student 100k in debt that ended up being down 60k trading after initially making 44k. like man why are you gambling money you don't have, especially an amount that most people don't even make in a year
edit: source for the shitshow
Lol what? Where has innovation "stopped" because of "protectionism"?
Conservatives are super pro-sales tax because it's regressive taxation. A common fake-libertarian argument is "we don't need income taxes, we can just have sales taxes".
People who prefer significant white space over bracket & brace blocks and semicolons are animals
It's if you see a differentiation between "mental illness" and "mental disorder". It makes sense that "mental illness" can be something which is detrimental to health or debilitating (like anything that gives a significantly warped and unreasonable perception of reality) and that may be non-lifelong/non-chronic, while "mental disorder/disability" is exclusively neurological differences that are lifelong/chronic and usually apparent during development (Autism, ADHD, mood & anxiety disorders, schizophrenia, etc.), imo.
It's like how "illness" can refer to a spread disease or sickness and isn't just disabilities. I see no reason to separate physical and mental illness from each other. Same with disorders. They're just illness and disorder/disability.
Falsely threatening your toddler with taking away their weekends is a "white lie"? Why parent using fear and deception? Why not actually working on helping them manage their own feelings/emotions/needs without punishment looming over them?
All this kind of stuff does is teach them that they shouldn't do "bad" stuff when they're likely to lose something from doing so... which usually becomes "I can do 'bad' stuff as long as I'm unlikely to face punishment for it or as long as the reward outweighs the punishment".
Telling these lies to your kids and other forms of manipulation also usually makes them more distrustful of you and less likely to be open to you when they start to become more socially/emotionally intelligent.
Lying and punishment (or threatening punishment) are both generally counterproductive/destructive when it comes to human parenting and encourage developing troublesome behaviour patterns. It's usually lazy or poor parenting (something that even good parents are susceptible to doing, being imperfect and all), and unfortunately most parents use it as their primary method of dealing with behaviour they don't want. Especially with neurodivergent children, who are affected significantly worse by this form of parenting.
Something relevant is that rewards are significantly more complicated and require a lot more consideration on how they may affect the child's performance based on motivation â too much, too regular, or incorrectly placed extrinsic motivation can have a negative effect on performance when there otherwise would have been enough intrinsic motivation, and you don't want a child to end up expecting an extrinsic reward or relying on extrinsic rewards for motivation. In that case, the lack of a reward may then start to discourage good behaviour (or discourage limiting destructive behaviour). You also don't want the child to tie their personal self-worth to the thing you're rewarding, then they have feelings of shame when they can't meet those expectations, and they become paranoid about meeting them. This is a problem commonly caused by evaluative praise/non-descriptive praise which focuses on outcome rather than the process and assigns a "good" or "bad" label to the result of actions, as opposed to descriptive praise which is neutral and encourages constructive self-reflection.
Two good books addressing issues with deceptive & manipulative parenting and the methods which are beneficial in the long-term are Unconditional Parenting and Punished By Rewards (Alfie Kohn)
In many situations where a child's having an outburst that's negatively affecting others in an attempt to gain something (like attention), it may be better to have them take a break (as in temporarily separate them from the people they're bothering) in a non-punishing way (so not a "time-out" or total isolation/deprivation of stimulation) while staying calm and not speaking/behaving harshly, not lie to them that they'll incur a loss. You may even be able to have a conversation with them afterwards about their emotions and why they feel their actions would get them what they wanted or needed, but sometimes too much conversation can actually have the effect of a reward if your child was seeking attention by doing the negative behaviour, so it can sometimes be more productive to keep your message short and simple â calmly/non-aggressively conveying that this behaviour won't get them what they need. Actively managing attention and making sure it's not used as a reward nor as a punishment can be very hard, you can give or divest attention without even realizing it, but it pays off a lot in the long-term. Kids aren't adult-levels of emotionally mature and have very little impulse control, but they're not irrational or (emotionally) unintelligent either, despite that being the common belief.
Really a lot of these problems with addressing unwanted behaviour stem from the lack of widespread & accessible science-based parental education. For a lot of parents, the only guides they're receptive to are (usually religious fundamentalist and/or for-profit) garbage mommyblogs and Facebook parenting groups, plus whatever their family or friends tells them is right. Most parents are basically winging it with little to no training or education, which is a recipe for a bunch of fucked up and traumatized future adults. It's hard to understand the long-term consequences of your actions if you were never taught about them in the first place, and especially so when contradictory ideas like "punishment/reward is the right way to parent" and "kids are our property and less human than us" is so deeply ingrained in our culture.
This kind of stuff is absolutely the number one failure of Democrats. They want to play fair and by the rules, so when there's opposition to their appointments they just lie down and accept it until the Republicans get exactly who they want. Meanwhile the Republicans will lie, cheat, and slander their way to anything they want, including getting ultra-conservatives in on positions that aren't supposed to be political.
Biden's been way better in this regard which is part of what makes him way better than previous Democrat presidents. But I still don't have high hopes for "the party of compromise" in getting progressives in these kinds of positions. In particular, we all remember what happened at the end of Obama's presidency with supreme court judges and Roe v Wade.
I mean it's the same as literally any other business. There's a reason businesses aren't allowed to discriminate based on things like race/ethnicity, national origin, sex, and in civilized parts of the world, gender and sexuality.
The "colorblind" approach doesn't really work. it only serves to maintain social hierarchies by ignoring that there's a problem in the first place.
By basically not having the laws which are there to promote solving the problem, it effectively ignores that there's a problem at all. Being officially legally the same doesn't mean society treats you the same, and at that point you're trusting the population to just dissolve the hierarchies themselves with the law disallowing the methods which are actually effective at doing that which... doesn't work.
Plus there's a ton of ways to discriminate in law without mentioning gender, and having plausible deniability about it. That's what a ton of the Jim Crow era in the US was about. That's what much existing legislation does with women actually.
depends on your genetics and the environment of the womb, brains are pretty complicated and behaviour is affected a lot by that kind of stuff. there exist people who mostly or entirely lack empathy after being born and there are people who are ultraempathetic, and there's a ton in between.
there's also a difference between "cognitive empathy" (the ability to recognize others' emotions) and "affective empathy" (how you emotionally respond to your perception of others' emotions). something also associated with empathy is the ability to distinguish between yourself and others, i.e. how well you can put yourself in their shoes rather than think of their experience from your own perspective.
a lot of people suck at the last one, which is bad because even if you have positive affective empathy and can share others' emotions, you still may not be able to really grasp how they feel and you'll probably think that they're overreacting or underreacting or reacting wrong because you can't imagine yourself acting the same way if you experienced the same thing. many people are subconsciously sexist or racist because they see someone dealing with casual sexism and racism and think it's not that bad, just brush it off, but they can't relate at all because they don't have the same set of life experiences and same psychology as other people. to them it's "i wouldn't react that way if someone did that to me, so you shouldn't either".
it's usual for humans to have enough empathy to survive as a pack/society at least, but it's also usual for humans to not have a mood disorder and it's usual for humans to have 5 toes on each foot. in some "societies" like american capitalism, less affective empathy is usually advantageous with high cognitive empathy, and more affective empathy is usually a disadvantage, which is kind of the opposite trend in humans.
a lot of the times when it seems someone lacks empathy, they either don't express their empathy in typical ways, or conditions (like culture) require them to silence it to be successful. but they could also just lack affective empathy, or have dissonant empathy (affective empathy entailing an opposite emotional response than what you would expect), both of which are typical anti-social and narcissistic traits.
for some reason i find it funny how the animals more related to humans are the more ruthlessly violent ones. apparently bonobos are much more violent than chimps, and orangutans are less violent than gorillas
it makes me wonder how aggressive early australopithecus was compared. apparently they did a lot of cannibalism so probably at least slightly more than non-australopithecus humans. they probably weren't even close to as aggressive as chimpanzees considering how significantly weaker they were though
When most humans are idiots or ignorant (they are), direct democracy doesn't work. And other forms of democracy also don't work that well. But the alternative is... authoritarianism, which also doesn't work.
The only way to achieve a truly liberated society is to have a direct democracy of a well-informed populace and an elimination of social hierarchies, but that's just a pipe dream... any form of socialism that isn't Marxist-Leninism or "Democratic Socialism" (begging the capitalists to pls give us at least a crumb of socialism, the false belief that socialism is achievable through peaceful reform under an inequal/capitalist society) is never gonna happen.