Lurker > foolm0r0n

Here's the original survey with much better charts. Yeah the big takeaways are that crime is seen as a big issue, but federal takeover is highly unpopular, and few people think their own community has a crime issue.

It does mean that to be popular, you have to address the issue of crime AND resist the fascist overreach. That seems pretty easy to do if you're not a totally incompetent politician.

https://apnorc.org/projects/most-say-crime-is-a-major-problem-in-americas-cities-but-few-support-a-federal-takeover-of-police-departments/

https://apnews.com/article/trump-crime-poll-approval-dc-national-guard-5c5d503600cd443e639ab37dc6ddc0dc

Inviso posted...

My main issue there was how each match takes an unbearably long amount of time.

That's by far the main advantage of the behind the goal trick

Now the real question

Is it:
1) Haste-ga
2) Has-te-ga

what

Made in USA = bringing sweatshops back to the USA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVDPOPWarDU

Inviso posted...

I mean, if we're going to be spending unimaginable funds on those things anyway, I'd personally rather see billionaires pay more in taxes so at least they aren't actively prospering from a system that empowers war, ICE and corporate welfare (the last point meaning at least they're paying themselves, rather than making the rest of us pay them).

Stupid and evil. The only way it would make sense is if we raised taxes enough on billionaires that they leave the US and go to New Zealand or some other country that does not spend taxes so sadistically.

It's ridiculously stupid to have Trump in office and still call for billionaires to be taxed more. What fantasy world do you imagine these taxes will be used for? The reality is they will be used for war, ICE, and corporate welfare (mostly in healthcare but also now things like Intel stock). You're literally evil if you're demanding more funding for that.

LightningStrikes posted...

Do not lose sight of what it was that let the tech bros do that though. A complete failure of government oversight. Which is the whole reason they all shifted to Trump, each of them were trying to use him to push back against regulation because they could see it coming down the way. And they are scared of that.

Trump's 2 admins are the only ones who could legitimately overturn section 230, which would erase social media and a lot of other apps overnight. They are making an enormous gamble supporting him. The winning side of the gamble is that they can control him by being superficially sycophantic. But it is increasingly likely that they lose and P2025 win, convincing Trump to eliminate sec 230 and take federal control over the networks.

It's a lose-lose because if they weren't sycophantic, he would kill sec 230 and take them over anyway. They really lost long ago, when they allowed Trump to get to this point TWICE. That said, there's a chance they win influence and come out on top. If that happens, they won't learn their lesson at all, and will pretend they made the right decisions all along.

Oh yeah DK should try living in a small town, it's literally torturous. The amount of mental health issues in small towns due to boredom was huge. It still is, but the internet and globalization helped a lot. (Social media is not crucial for that though.) Very few people actually want the small town trad life. Most of the ones I know who did it successfully are actually heavily plugged in to the internet with a remote software job, or they are rich and travel often, etc.

UshiromiyaEva posted...

Thousand of New Yorkers are having a blast today taking part in Mamdani's scavenger hunt. This was all put together in just a week. Nothing like this could have happened without a social media campaign

Really bad example. A text/email chain could've easily done it, and has done many times in the past.

Arab Spring was organized via text groups, to give a non-toy example.

Nothing locally organized ever needs algorithmic social media. Facebook became huge by showing you what your small group of friends (and related people) were doing locally. It showed very close to 100% of your network's content, similar to a message board or discord. The transition to a semi-chronological feed that only showed maybe 20% of your network content was necessary as the networks grew exponentially. Thatstill provides value. But the modern algorithmic feed that only shows 0.0001% of the global network provides absolutely 0 value. It exists solely to drain your attention and convert it to advertising profit or political profit (through propaganda).

Everything that is truly addictive has benefits. No ones denying that. But that's what makes it so addictive, and destructive.

I think it's more that there's a strong theme in this show about doing things the right way being key to unimaginable growth. And part of that is having an imaginative mind that is tapped into the spirits. When Toph discovered metalbending it was very clear that it's not just that she's the best earthbender, but that she does "real" spiritual earthbending that has been forgotten by modern practitioners. Sokka basically did the same with sword fighting, and other characters have their own examples.

HeroicCrono posted...

The Dems are going to need about 30 years to learn. It'll take until the current generation in power (including young people) gives up and retires, so new people can try something different.

That's the conventional wisdom, but the truth is "those in power" NEVER retire. The next generation always has enough people looking to fill the gaps in the status quo, and even crystallize it further.

The only way things actually change is with internal revolution, which happened with Trump (and then was easily co-opted back by the status quo, but that's beside the point) and might be happening now starting in NYC.

We don't need to keep rehashing 2024 (maybe the Ds do if they still haven't learned the right lessons from it) but remember that Kamala had one of the strongest incumbent party results of the last global election cycle. It's mostly because Trump is such a bad candidate, but still.

If you're playing it in 2025 you must do genocide. Tons of games have since copied the vibes of regular and pacifist but nothing has really come close to replicating genocide.

Maybe he can run for NYC mayor instead

jesus christ, that wasn't on my bingo card
https://x.com/justinamash/status/1959034445379362877

But it should've been. Trump has always been a powerful communist sympathizer from what I could tell (real communism like Stalin, Mao, Kim, not fantasy gay space communism). He admires Putin the most out of any contemporary despot, and he grew up deep in liberal (and likely communist) circles in 20th century NYC.

I wonder what the "democratic socialists" will do with this. Do they have the guts to oppose it, and prove that they aren't communists?

I kinda love the idea of absolving Clinton along with Trump in her sycophantic lie. It gives conspiracy theorists something to bite onto while still following the DOJ's instructions.

https://apnews.com/article/epstein-maxwell-justice-department-interview-transcripts-1d38a010e72b5b58cca944cb3bbb0e6a

This time Biden's gonna kidnap and deport him, plus kick the field goal for an extra point

Leonhart4 posted...

You can make a point about the dangers of AI using his parameters if you accurately state his parameters

Then it also applies to a lot of good tech over the last 30 years which fits those parameters, which was my original point. You can't pick and choose.

But you CAN make his work say something that it didn't if you want to make a point against AI 30 years later. That's fine really, you just want to make your point with a fun meme.

I stated the thesis accurately and I am disagreeing with it. I disagree when it's applied to GMOs and I disagree when it's applied to AI. I don't need to appeal to the author to make my point like everyone else. I'm quite comfortable disagreeing with a famous writer.

HanOfTheNekos posted...

Imagine a wheat that spread so far and grew so fast that it overtook natural grassland.

Monsanto literally did this with their GMOs. But the key tech that enabled the strategy wasn't GMO, it was copyright law.

I do think CS employment is majorly inflated right now, because of the combination of bad economy and extremely high expectations that were sold. The point of a CS degree is even in a bad economy you can still get a job. It's a shit one, but it's still there, and it's still way above average among all careers. That's what we were sold post 2008. But then during the bubble, they started selling 500k salaries within 3 years of work or whatever. That might come back, but not for many years.

It's still significant but undeniably less valuable than 20 years ago. When people say it doesn't matter it's because if you use networking, you can skip the initial application filters which require a degree. But your best entry into networking comes from a professional degree program (ignoring random privilege like family) so it's a moot point.

I gotta admit my first impression was old people who are addicted to it now. But the closest answer is probably the first generation who used it, Zuck's own pretty much.

Gangnam Style was and still is peak. People got sick of it and try to pretend it was always a joke but it doesn't work.

What's reductive is presuming that Malcolm would oppose any tech you don't currently like, which is exactly how people use that quote. Based on what you're saying, Malcolm would support LLMs, especially from places like Deepmind (e.g. AlphaFold).

HanOfTheNekos posted...

Should we bring back large carnivorous species that have been extinct for millions of years?

This is NOT an example of clear theming by the way, since it's an absurd fantasy scenario. The dinosaurs are a metaphor for something real. I haven't read the book, so what is it? Where's the real line? What would he say about GMO food, which has been vilified since that era, but is also responsible for probably billions of extra lives lived?

HeroicCrono posted...

This shows he isn't a real conservative. A real conservative would favor the past over the future.

Can't believe he showed this crack in his perfect record of conservatism

He should check out Epcot

Leonhart4 posted...

As I said earlier, unless this is foolmo's way of admitting he's an antivax conspiracy theorist, this isn't a practical application of the movie's themes.

I explicitly don't agree with that theme of the movie because it applies to modern anti-vax arguments. So I don't like it as an anti-AI argument either.

Another way to say it is that the covid vaccines absolutely had board room meetings full of billionaires discussing how to make money off of it. It was beneficial to those in power. If that's the criteria that makes it objectionable, then it's a classic anti-vax argument ("follow the money"). AI has a much higher % of scientists in the driver's seat than bio tech too, at least for now, so it's better on that metric.

They tried to do so much so fast in the finale, but it's hard to criticize since it turned out so awesome. It's definitely silly in retrospect. But then you remember the alternative is modern prestige TV where barely anything happens in an entire 55 minute episode. (Honestly curious how the live action S2 will do this sequence.)

And really, would a whole extra episode of Aang opening chakras really help? I appreciate that they went with all the actual chakras and didn't try to simplify it to like 3.

What is the criteria then?

HanOfTheNekos posted...

The book is about emergent tech. It's less about "tech that caused humanity to survive until this point".

The point is all tech that you value was emergent. Much of it was emergent exactly when the movie came out (if we're talking about modern biotech, or things like the internet and video games).

I won't pretend that the movie somehow supported all the new tech I grew up with in the last 30 years, but draws the line at LLMs. I suppose that's not illiterate, it's just wishful thinking (willful ignorance?). Goldblum's character would've opposed a lot of our new tech, that's a literary fact.

LLMs have taken longer to develop and gone through more testing than mRNA vaccines. Does that make them good tech? Covid vaccines made a ton of big wigs extremely rich. Ozempic has a higher market cap than the country its founded in. Does that make it bad tech? There is no clear criteria that can separate all the tech you like from all the tech you don't. Goldblum's criteria certainly doesn't.

HanOfTheNekos posted...

fool, where you get it wrong is that Jurassic Park wasn't written about pre-existing tech - it was specifically geared to new technologies that were emerging at the time

You realize the movie was 30 years ago right? What do you think was emerging then? A ton of stuff that is established now like GMOs, MRI, CRISPR, and indeed vaccines like mRNA.

How can you look at a 1996 movie about the existential danger of technology and believe it only applies to tech after 2022?

Literacy is so dead holy shit

We don't even need AI to melt our brains, the job has already been done

redrocket posted...

This quote just continues to become exponentially more relevant day by day:

https://youtu.be/g3j9muCo4o0?si=P-ojiN74efCKma1j

And its important to recognize that idea and the premise of the whole movie in general is about biomedical technology. i.e. vaccines and a ton of other tech that caused humanity to survive to this point

Kenri posted...

US elections are extremely rigged on a good day with a normal president, there's a lot of space for them to "actually happen" but not matter.

Well yeah, speaking of Putin especially. But that's still better than a dictatorship where elections don't happen at all, which is definitely on the table. Although I only think it's better cuz I'm tired of this shit.

I Just Subscribed To OpenAI Pro And I Can't Believe My Serialized Token Output Is So Cute

Anything that keeps him on this side of the "elections will actually happen in 2026 and 2028" line is good to me

redrocket posted...

and ironically also applies to Presidential elections while the EC remains in place.

It would be kinda funny for the EC to be abolished this way. Every state individually adopts RCV for presidential elections, and it makes things so inconvenient (e.g. Zohran but on a much bigger scale) that both major parties try to get their states to revert to FPTP. But no individual state wants to be the one to go back on it first, because it would hurt the state politicians. So RCV continues to grow and spread. Until there's a critical mass where the entire country decides to pass an amendment against the EC, just so the feds are able to block RCV for national elections.

Abolishing EC is definitely way more viable than some other ideas. You just need a populist who is willing to do something that is short-term bad for their party, in order to make history. I would not be surprised if Trump pushed for it as he gets more desperate and senile, for example.

If the consent is challenged then yes that has implications, and has a long history of law unrelated to AI. If the adult did consent and you want to forcibly remove their consent in order to make your argument, that is a violent idea and not okay.

I've been talking with a lawyer colleague who consults on AI projects to figure out liabilities like this other issues like copyright. And he has found that pretty much every AI issue at this time does fall under an existing well established non-AI precedent. In the future we might get some unique issues (prob related to consciousness) but so far not yet.

24 was serial? I thought it was a Law and Order kinda thing

Compulsory voting has a big individual rights leap it has to take, so it's in a totally different class of policy.

RCV is basically already coming from the bottom up, it's just a matter of time. Could be a very long time or a shorter time, but it's inevitable. Compulsory voting could legit just never happen.

So this isn't League of Legends?

Maybe social media is a better analogy since it's only been around 20 years. It's caused many suicides, both directly by online bullying, and indirectly by inducing depression. Also internet communication in general has been used by e.g. child predators since the 90s.

But we know and accept the risks and value the benefits moreso. Only Metal DK has the guts to call for it to be outlawed. Even older generations have become addicted to it now, so they would resist outlawing it.

It's very likely that in the near future, both younger and older generations will be irreparably addicted to social media and AI (they're the same thing now really) while our generation is alone in our skepticism.

Leonhart4 posted...

Other than people trying to sell you AI, no one else is quite so convinced that this is a good thing.

The people like the one in the article literally love the AI. You can explain all the risks and they'll still choose to do it.

The difference with cars is that the kid who got run over never agreed to take on that risk. It's forced onto them by adult drivers.

Yes it would actually save hundreds of thousands of lives, but since it's "new", people won't tolerate it. Blood pays for the status quo.

Maniac64 posted...

Also there are laws and punishments in place for killing someone with a car.

Not really in many cases, maybe even most.

Anyway, be happy knowing that since you are so easily able to normalize car deaths, that you will soon do the same with AI deaths. 1 is a tragedy, 1000 is a statistic, 1000000 is a culture.