Xhieron @ xhieron @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

295

Joined

2 yr. ago

Then why are you campaigning for Trump?

Alright, don't everybody talk at once now. Tell us how this is Joe Biden's fault.

Hear, hear! This is fantastic. The people who can change the state of Israel are the Israeli people. I hope their voices are heard.

You're just as disingenuous with your argument as you are with your position. Anybody who wants to know what I legitimately said can read it.

Entertaining a terrible hypothetical to make a point is not the same as being okay with it--and I think you know that already. For example, I still engaged with you lot because I think there might be some benefit for someone reading this exchange to realize that these issues are complicated and nuanced, and they deserve critical thinking. That doesn't mean I'm okay with you. Fortunately, unlike with global politics, the consequences of ending this engagement are nonexistent.

маска снята, правда.

Oh make no mistake, I'm voting for Joe no matter what. The only alternative is Donald Trump, and Donald Trump wants to destroy the Republic. Joe could send American troops into Rafah to glass it today, and I'd hold my nose and go vote for him in November. That's just facing reality.

Would I prefer things were different? Of course, but however much legitimate criticism might be laid at Biden's feet for not doing more to stop the genocide in Gaza, Trump has already wholly endorsed completely annihilating the Palestinian people, and he wants genocide in the US besides.

It's not a difficult choice.

These people would prefer for Biden to lose, and I'm quite convinced that they don't really care why or how. Genocide is the buzzword of the year, but if Israel and Gaza make peace tomorrow, all of these people will all have new reasons why Democratic voters should stay home or burn their ballots.

Not a binary proposition. Support Israel and lose voters, abandon Israel and lose more and different voters. Diplomacy is hard. Politics is hard.

Part of the reason it's hard in this particular situation is bad actors pretending that geopolitics can be reduced to a soundbyte and that the problem is simple and easy.

Think you can do better? Run for president.

Yeah yeah, we get it, nothing's as good as crack. You don't have to rub it in.

Probably not, but it sure beats $0.

You're right. Forging any kind of working relationship between Israel and Iran would be extremely challenging. I guess maybe Israel and the US should try to find a path forward as allies.

Tomorrow? Of course not. Inside the decade? Absolutely. Saudi-Israel relations are thawing as we speak, and that hostility basically dates since the foundation of the modern Israeli state. If Israel and Iran suddenly find themselves on the same side of geopolitics (i.e., if both of them are American enemies because apparently a lot of Lemmings think we should break diplomatic relations with Israel altogether, meaning that Israel is on the side of China, Russia, etc.), then anything is possible.

What would Bibi's alternative be? Go it alone?

I think Joe Biden is maybe the best president of my lifetime, and I'm going to vote for him with my head held high even though I live in a red state where it doesn't matter at all. I wish things were simpler in the Levant, but I appreciate that Joe Biden is between a rock and a hard place with Israel. It's not like he can just take Bibi out. He's not Boeing. That said, even if I laid the entire genocide at Biden's feet (which, while he's not blameless, is absolutely not appropriate), he would still be head and shoulders an improvement over Donald Trump.

For that matter, I'd absolutely let my 12 year old run this country before I'd let Trump have a second term. My kid is brilliant, and more importantly, unlike Trump he listens to advice, can take no for an answer, and gives a shit about having a functional democracy four years from now.

A second Trump term is an existential threat to the nation. Hold your nose, hold your neighbor's nose if you have to, but every able-bodied patriot owes it to their descendants and their patriotic ancestors to prevent a second Trump term.

It's entirely possible (and common) to reveal details about an incident without revealing personally identifiable information about a minor. There are good reasons not to--but unfortunately when police are involved, Occam's razor cuts in favor of agency self-preservation.

We need more information. The fact that the details about the victim are currently lacking is a bit of a red flag here. There is a marked difference between "police observed a 17 year old approaching the middle school with an automatic weapon and several bandoliers of ammunition" and "an 11 year old tried to sneak a handgun into the building in his backpack." Neither of those children need to be let anywhere near the school, but one of those situations you might be able to deescalate--maybe both. More pertinent to the subject at hand, if the case were the former, I would expect the police to be extremely forthcoming about it. The fact that those kinds of details are, to my understanding, yet to be revealed leads me to suspect that the cops want some time to get their story straight first.

It's always a good thing when a school shooting doesn't happen, but that doesn't change the sad reality that police in the United States are not to be trusted. This is still a story about a child killed by police, and that deserves scrutiny. Hopefully the action was well justified, but I think anyone would be forgiven for exercising skepticism given the dearth of details about what happened.

"Okay. We're joining BRICS. Mr. Putin loves genocide, and he's really going to love all this American tech we can show him."

Simple indeed.

Christmas.

Notwithstanding the fact that the comment was obviously made in jest, why would it matter whether a consumer had anything to do with the preparation of the food? I don't think anyone is genuinely ignorant of where meat comes from.

I'm not sure where to start here. Privacy and copyright aren't the same thing. If you don't understand that, I doubt we're actually able to debate this issue. People have been gossiping for as long as there has been language, and they've also been making shit up about each other, and as a result the law against slander is older than the Norman conquest, and HIPAA is just the latest statutory framework enshrining the very old rule that the ladies can gossip about whatever they hear in town, but the priests, doctors, and lawyers absolutely cannot. This isn't a novel, 21st century selfish gotcha. It's a very old, very simple principle: that some things are none of your fucking business, and if you run your mouth about people there will be consequences for it. That idea doesn't belong to a political ideology, and it's not an author's monopoly. The GDPR is absolutely concerned with those rights, and it rightly sanctions violators.

OpenAI is not society or human progress. It's a corporation trying to make money for its shareholders who care not one whit about the future of mankind of any lofty ideal. This isn't rugged individualism versus progress. It's natural persons versus a corporation that wants to trod roughshod over their rights to be left alone, to be free from the publication of lies about them, and to keep from invasion by the prying eyes of robber barons, governments, and newsmen their private business. That's best for everyone and what's best for society and human progress: If I want you to know something about me, I'll tell you. Otherwise, mind your own business, and that goes for OpenAI same as it goes for you.

Edit: Also your bodily integrity example is rubbish. A surgeon who interferes with your body without your informed consent has committed a battery against you. Even in an emergency the standard is frequently that you would have consented to the surgery if you were able.

The technology has to follow the legal requirements, not the other way around.

This is something that really needs to be taught better, at least in the US.

GDPR doesn't mean that LLMs are forbidden in the EU, but it does mean that the companies that create them may be liable for damages. That said, the damages must be real. Actual damages is somewhat cut and dry (e.g., ChatGPT publishes defamatory information about you, and someone relies on it to your detriment), but GDPR also contemplates damages for distress (e.g., emotional).

If that’s true then the legal requirements will have to be changed ...

I think this position needs to be rejected in the strongest possible terms. Our response to any emerging technology should not be "It's too good not to have, so who cares if people lose their rights?" The right to privacy and with it the right to control one's likeness, name, and personal data is a much easier right to conceptually trade away than, say, the right to bodily integrity, but I think we've seen enough dystopian sci-fi at this point to understand where the intersections might lie between other rights and correspondingly miraculous technologies. [And after all, without the combustion engine we probably wouldn't be staring down the barrel of climate change right now.]

Should we, for instance, do away with the right to bodily integrity if it means everyone gets chipped shortly after birth? [The analogy to circumcision is unintentional but not lost on me.] After all, the chips mean that we can locate missing and abducted children easily and at trivial cost. They also mean that we no longer need to carry money or proxies for money. Crime is at an all-time low. Worth it, right? After all, the procedure is "minimally invasive."

The point is, rights have to be sacrosanct. They need to be the first consideration, and they need to be non-negotiable. If a technology needs those rights to bend or give way in order to exist, then it should not exist. If it's of sufficient benefit to society, then it can be made to exist in a way that preserves those rights, and those who are unwilling to create it in such a way should suffer the sanction of law.