maniclucky
@maniclucky@lemmy.world
- Comment on grrr 2 hours ago:
I appreciate the answer. I even agree to a large extent with your last point. I still think it an easy thing to not do and will call it out when I see it. I think the people that are letting annoyance with the general rule ‘don’t be a dick even if you can get away with it’ lead them to fascism were probably most of the way there anyway, but that’s whatever.
I’m not going to entreat further change from you, I’ve got too many paragraphs into this thread as is. I hope to see the immoral sacks of shit get everything they have coming too.
- Comment on grrr 4 hours ago:
There was no ambiguous intent to how they used the slur. It was the classic “they’re bad because they’re like X” usage. It’s a word with a long history of harming a marginalized group. It was resurrected by awful people for its original awful purpose.
So, less good faith this time: why do you defend it? What worth does it have that cannot be claimed elsewhere?
Asked by someone part of a group that was painted with the r-slur for a long ass time (autism).
- Comment on grrr 4 hours ago:
So. Coming down from my high horse and taking a breath. A good faith question for you? I can understand the first paragraph and disagree with the second, but I would like to let that go for just a second.
Why are you attached to this word? They defend pedophiles, the steal from the poor, they commit atrocities, and they do really bizarre shit like wearing diapers because their leader is incontinent. I get the ‘hit them with what hurts’ angle and can’t say whether or not it’s effective. Is casually hurting others, because two different people in these comments have positively asserted that they were offended, worth not choosing a different word?
- Comment on grrr 5 hours ago:
The test was ‘don’t use slurs’. I suspect you have larger issues if that is the hill you want to die on.
I’m autistic. I don’t like seeing that word come back. So I called out shit behavior. Have some godsdamned creativity if you’re going to insult people. Don’t emulate the people you’re insulting.
- Comment on grrr 10 hours ago:
Don’t be a shit bag.
- Comment on grrr 10 hours ago:
You look like them when you drop the r-slur. Don’t let their shit behavior and punching down make you worse.
- Comment on A place for conservatives 2 months ago:
Basically. Our Overton window is fucked thanks to the Nazis in power. Both current and historical.
- Comment on Bad people and bullies usually have justified reasons for why they are doing bad things, so instead of blaming them, maybe sympathize with them. 3 months ago:
At the risk of lumping myself in with bullies (I don’t leave the house enough to be one or the victim of one), there’s space between here and there. We can by sympathetic that a bully is being abused at home or some other form of unhappiness causing a behavior while also condemning it. Like stopping someone looking at their phone from walking into the street. Pull them out and also yell at them for being a moron.
Some number can, with sympathy in addition to condemnation, change their behavior. The ones that don’t were given a chance and they can eat the consequences of being a cunt.
- Comment on Over 47% of Stop Killing Games Signatures Have Already Been Verified 3 months ago:
You know that large groups can pursue more than one thing at a time right?
- Comment on Huge internet outage live blog: Amazon, Disney+, Hulu, HBO Max and more experiencing issues 3 months ago:
That’s what they said.
- Comment on Elon musk is a pedophile 4 months ago:
Well, without the files I’m going to assume worst case. Normal prostitution doesn’t need to go to a remote island that also has sex trafficked children.
- Comment on The campaign against predatory in-game practices takes a step forward in Brazil, as President Lula bans loot boxes targeted at under-18s 4 months ago:
The point is that, despite being in the same bill, they shouldn’t be. One is already covered in existing law, related to adult exclusive activities recognized as such the world over (porn for clarity). The other is defining a new phenomenon that has yet to be defined as being exclusive to adults and currently exists within spaces for children to the point of predation and is akin to existing child targeted products (loot boxes again for clarity).
Lumping even seemingly similar things is a bad practice that is more meant to poison pill bills (among other things) than actually execute legislative duties.
- Comment on Magic is real, we just know how it works and call it technology 4 months ago:
The inverse of Clark’s saying: sufficiently explained magic of indistinguishable from science (credit: Girl Genius webcomic)
- Comment on If they wanted to do a gender-swapped Doctor Who, without it being the absolute pile of dogshit that is the BBC's current attempt, Fern Brady would be an immaculately perfect choice 5 months ago:
A lesser point: the writing is pretty bad even by who standards. Trying too hard to check inclusion boxes when they would be nailing it with a little less effort. A random line in Gatwas second season about it being illegal for nurses to not know sign language, despite the presence of universal translation, was a ham fisted attempt to force inclusivity. Good impulse, heinously bad execution.
A thing that stood out to me was a recent episode (first of his second season). They go to the planet, find the bad guy, turns out he’s a literal incel (feels like they didn’t have to be so on the head, but that bit is whatever) stalking the new companion. In the end he unceremoniously dies. The Doctor and the new companion shared a laugh.
The Doctor doesn’t laugh at death. Granted I’ve never watched the originals, but the other Doctors have no shortage of hang ups about it. The tenth goes out of his way to give the bad guys a chance to end peacefully on his debut episode before killing them with a frown. The fourteenth chastised a person for trying to take advantage of the bad guy hanging from a ledge in her debut episode. The eleventh was a showman, but treated a good man going to war with proper, barely restrained rage. The twelfth has a sizable plotline about his issues with soldiers that interferes with his relationship with Clara.
- Comment on Where did the word and concept of "derpy" come from and where is it going? 5 months ago:
Similar genre with a tiny setup difference: portal fantasy. Think Narnia or Inuyasha in which characters return from the other world
- Comment on Exclusive: Evidence of cell phone surveillance detected at anti-ICE protest 7 months ago:
Faraday bags make great stocking stuffers.
- Comment on public services of an entire german state switches from Microsoft to open source (Libreoffice, Linux, Nextcloud, Thunderbird) 8 months ago:
Yup. I switched to linux on my home computer and now the more time I spend with it, the more I pity my work computer for the cancer it has to deal with.
- Comment on [deleted] 8 months ago:
Not a parent.
Of course it will help in that case. It’s literally what it’s there for. Also, the age where you can get away with leashing your kids is also the age where they aren’t forming a ton of memories or where they have no social context to be embarrassed. They may be embarrassed when they’re older, but that’s just life.
Stop inflicting your feelings into random children.
- Comment on Social media sites should have 'reverse' Parental Controls; where adult children can block their boomer/senior parents' accounts from viewing conspiracy and radicalizing content. 9 months ago:
Rights and freedoms are not unlimited. Freedom of speech ends at things that put people in danger (e.g. shouting fire in a crowded space). Guns are available pursuant to a well regulated militia (or should be, but let’s not open that can of worms).
I’ll grant the proactive/reactive in a sort of way. If anyone (not only old people drink the fox news poison) starts up with some hyper racist shit, is restricting them not reactive to their emergent behavior? Would it be that big a stretch to codify the effects of propaganda as a sort of mental injury that needs treated? (Yes it would). Point is, at this point we’re splitting this hair rather fine and getting away from the important bits.
So the real way to handle the propaganda is to punish fox and their ilk for being wildly irresponsible and setting up racist fascist bullshit. Corporations are much easier to regulate than individuals (theoretically). They should be sued into the ground for all they’ve done, but we live in an oligarchy so that’s not happening anytime soon. This shower thought emerges because free market capitalism refuses to have any morals whatsoever and people are desperate to stop the big companies from hurting everyone. And the thing that’s easiest for everyone to see is the people they love start repeating horrible things and being helpless to pull them out of the echo chamber.
No, the shower thought isn’t good. It shouldn’t get that far. But right now, the only thing we can affect is the people next to us because the rich are never held accountable, so we’re stuck with bad and worse solutions.
- Comment on Social media sites should have 'reverse' Parental Controls; where adult children can block their boomer/senior parents' accounts from viewing conspiracy and radicalizing content. 9 months ago:
Not the gotcha you think it is. And also, big difference between bans and regulation, let’s not conflate them.
We install breathalyzers in cars and revoke licenses when people refuse to act responsibly. It’s a common requirement of probation and parole to remain sober. We do what you (/I) describe often. In fact, it’s kinda the basis of operation for law at large: we limit the behavior of individuals to reduce harm to people. Be it saying “stabbing people is bad, now go to time out” or “don’t drink raw milk, you’ll get sick”. So yeah, I’m OK with what you described. If people cannot mange their substances, we can and do force them to stop with punitive measures.
- Comment on Social media sites should have 'reverse' Parental Controls; where adult children can block their boomer/senior parents' accounts from viewing conspiracy and radicalizing content. 9 months ago:
See the trick is this: does “mentally fit” apply, even in the case of otherwise mentally healthy individuals? Propaganda can affect anyone and the less tech savvy more so. We have no issues with limiting the physical behavior of the people we care about when they cannot handle it anymore (e.g. we’ll drive grandpa around when he can technically do it, but shouldn’t). While some do kick a fuss about it (for understandable reasons) ultimately, society at large is pretty OK with the whole deal.
Now we have them exposed to content that is arguably harmful to their health and the health of the people around them (e.g. voting). And this isn’t opinion stuff or debates. These are outright lies catered to them. There were no dogs being eaten in Springfield, and yet I could hear the old dudes at my gym discussing it while they walked the mezzanine. At what point does their right to play with their phone cede to their mental health? For anyone really? We cede rights to do things when they harm ourselves and others often. Why is this different?
- Comment on Social media sites should have 'reverse' Parental Controls; where adult children can block their boomer/senior parents' accounts from viewing conspiracy and radicalizing content. 9 months ago:
We can influence the behavior of our loved ones, we can’t meaningfully influence sociopaths corporations. While not feasible, it still feels like the best of a a bunch of shitty options.
- Comment on YSK that if you lose your Social Security Card (USA) more than 10 times, the Social Security Administration will have to, by law, refuse to issue anymore replacement cards, for the rest of your life. 10 months ago:
Not everyone has a passport and you use SSN to get one. Passports are relatively rare for a lot of people in the US.
- Comment on YSK that if you lose your Social Security Card (USA) more than 10 times, the Social Security Administration will have to, by law, refuse to issue anymore replacement cards, for the rest of your life. 10 months ago:
Yes, sort of, but in a stupid way. The number is treated as a unique identifier of a person, but you don’t carry it around since it’s so insecure.
- Comment on I tried THIS and it actually works all the time 10 months ago:
I love what appears to be a citation.
- Comment on Jackbox Games coming to Smart TVs for free 11 months ago:
Actually, that part I’m not worried about. Jackbox is one of my friends go-to end of party games. It’s all through your phone and accommodates a good amount of people, slightly game dependent.
- Comment on New Junior Developers Can’t Actually Code. 11 months ago:
You’re right in that the goal is problem solving, you’re wrong that inability to code isn’t a problem.
AI can make a for loop and do common tasks but the moment you have something halfway novel to do, it has a habit of shitting itself and pretending that the feces is good code. And if you can’t read code, you can’t tell the shit from the stuff you want.
It may be able to do it in the future but it can’t yet
Source: data engineer who has fought his AI a time or two.
- Comment on AI chatbots unable to accurately summarise news, BBC finds 1 year ago:
An elegant way to make someone feel ashamed for using many smart words, ha-ha.
Unintentional I assure you.
I think it’s some social mechanism making them choose a brute force solution first.
I feel like it’s simpler than that. Ye olde “when all you have is a hammer, everything’s a nail”. Or in this case, when you’ve built the most complex hammer in history, you want everything to be a nail.
So I’d say commercially they already are successful.
Definitely. I’ll never write another cover letter. In their use-case, they’re solid.
but I haven’t even finished my BS yet
Currently working on my masters after being in industry for a decade. The paper is nice, but actually applying the knowledge is poorly taught (IMHO, YMMV) and being willing to learn independently has served me better than by BS in EE.
- Comment on AI chatbots unable to accurately summarise news, BBC finds 1 year ago:
I’m not against attempts at global artificial intelligence, just against one approach to it. Also no matter how we want to pretend it’s something general, we in fact want something thinking like a human.
Agreed. The techbros pretending that the stochastic parrots they’ve created are general AI annoys me to no end.
While not as academically cogent as your response (totally not feeling inferior at the moment), it has struck me that LLMs would make a fantastic input/output to a greater system analogous to the Wernicke/Broca areas of the brain. It seems like they’re trying to get a parrot to swim by having it do literally everything. I suppose the thing that sticks in my craw is the giveaway that they’ve promised that this one technique (more or less, I know it’s more complicated than that) can do literally everything a human can, which should be an entire parade of red flags to anyone with a drop of knowledge of data science or fraud. I know that it’s supposed to be a universal function appropriator hypothetically, but I think the gap between hypothesis and practice is very large and we’re dumping a lot of resources into filling in the canyon (chucking more data at the problem) when we could be building a bridge (creating specialized models that work together).
Now that I’ve used a whole lot of cheap metaphor on someone who causally dropped ‘syllogism’ into a conversation, I’m feeling like a freshmen in a grad level class. I’ll admit I’m nowhere near up to date on specific models and bleeding edge techniques.
- Comment on AI chatbots unable to accurately summarise news, BBC finds 1 year ago:
Ooooooh. Ok that makes sense. Correct use of words, just was not connecting those dots.