HopeOfTheGunblade

I would love to see research data pointing either way re #1, although it would be incredibly difficult to do so ethically, verging on impossible. For #2, people have extracted originals or near-originals of inputs to the algorithms. AI generated stuff - plagiarism machine generated stuff, runs the risk of effectively revictimizing people who were already abused to get said inputs.

It’s an ugly situation all around, and unfortunately I don’t know that much can be done about it beyond not demonizing people who have such drives, who have not offended, so that seeking therapy for the condition doesn’t screw them over. Ensuring that people are damned if they do and damned if they don’t seems to pretty reliably produce worse outcomes.

You’re missing 1.5: Make it impossible for people who every professional medical association of good repute says said medication help, get the medication by prescription.

A name for this?

Isn’t it ironic, dontcha think?

But not a Venus flytrap. Or a pitcher plant. Or rafflesia. Or…

You don’t think nearly 1/6th is statistically significant? What’s the lower bound on significance as you see things?

To be clear, it’s obviously dumb for their generative system to be overrepresenting turbans like this, although it’s likely to be a bias in the inputs rather than something the system came up with itself, I just think that 5% is generally enough to be considered significant and calling three times that not significant confuses me.

I don’t see what the problem is. I’ve definitely heard that with god, all things are possible, are we acknowledging that that’s not the case here? Can god only do spells with specific ingredients? Kinda sounds like witchcraft.

That’s my prediction as well, but if the experiment is cheap to run, why not do so, and see of you learn something?

Thanks, I hate it.

So for the 99% there is an abolishment of private property, leaving only personal property and public property, everyone has an equal share, and the state has been dissolved?

Because if not, at least one of us doesn’t understand communism. It’s entirely possible we both don’t. Would you be willing to clarify the term as you understand it?

claymores

1. Anything labeled “This end toward enemy” is dangerous at both ends.

Yeah, read through this thinking that from my perspective, NTs have some talents I don’t, but since they’re common people think of them as baseline rather than talents. Shit sucks.

Build aligned seed AI.

Sorry, can you back the part of that about Biden? Because it’s a pretty common trope of how unaware white people will say someone “seems so articulate”, I think it showed up in the first episode of The Boondocks?

What would you say was the least violent revolution that succeeded, by whatever metrics you use for those words?

Hi. I voted uncommitted. In the primary. Also, I advocated for others to vote uncommitted, in the primary. There, it’s a useful signal. In the general, it’s handing the country to people gleefully proclaiming they want to round you up, and who openly and blatantly showed their disregard for your continued existence by letting a plague run rampant on the basis that cities vote blue and are more crowded so would suffer more death.

I’m not sure why you think that letting the Republicans win by voting third party does anything but make things much, much worse, than not letting them win. First past the post elections are in part a keynesian beauty contest, and if you can’t recognize how that is the case, I don’t think you have a lot to correct me on.

Biden being less terrible doesn’t make him a force for good.

No, but him being adequate to not dragging leftists out behind the barn and having them shot is a necessary basis for any sort of improvement.

What do you think Revolution is? Bombing everyone?

Bombing everyone seems inefficient to the goal, which in a revolution is overthrow of the existing order. I’m not aware of any peaceful overthrowings of existing orders, can you point to some?

Wasn’t familiar with that term, looked it up. That looks like reform within the system rather than seizing the state. To do “through industrial unionism, seeks to unionize workers according to industry and advance their demands through strikes, with the eventual goal of gaining control over the means of production and the economy at large through social ownership,” you need to not get shot when you strike. Trump would absolutely hire the Pinkertons of old to kill strikers and union leaders. Biden has been an outlier in how good he has been for unions, and capital is trying to use the captured supreme Court against him in that. So, I’d prefer that he stay in office and keep doing that, while yes, absolutely, 1000%, organize and do strikes and generally fight harder from within the system than just casting a vote every four years. Just don’t flip the table or encourage others to rather than do these things, is my perspective, and that’s what revolution means in my understanding.

How would you do so nonviolently? Would you get your people into office? That seems like the nonviolent way to seize control of the state, but if there is another, I’m interested to hear it.

Seems to be working for the Nordic countries. I genuinely think that if you try a revolution in America, what you get will not be socialism. If you’re lucky, you will fail and get violent government rerribution. If you aren’t lucky, you’ll get full on authoritarianism, with mass bloody purges of undesirables of all shades. The rate of revolutions leading to good outcomes sucks. Mostly you get various flavors of dictatorships. Often with state sponsored mass murder.