• 1 Post
  • 89 Comments
Joined 7 months ago
cake
Cake day: February 16th, 2024

help-circle
  • You’re seriously saying “they deserve the ‘eye-for-an-eye’ treatment” while Israel is actively escalating the conflict?

    I have never defended genociders

    Oh okay. So where have I done that? In assuming that 3000 civilians who were harmed weren’t exclusively Hezbollah? Which would be an utterly ridiculous claim seeing how many literal children there are involved.

    So… you’ve never defended genociders. Then let’s see if you will. Is Israel committing a genocide in Gaza?

    You think only military personnel were killed in WW2?

    I’ve actually been in the military and have had training on what is and isn’t legal to do in armed conflict. Have you?

    https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule12

    Rule 12. Definition of Indiscriminate Attacks

    Rule 12. Indiscriminate attacks are those: (a) which are not directed at a specific military objective;

    (b) which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or

    © which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by international humanitarian law; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.



  • I think they’re implying this mostly hit Hezbollah members, not than none of the victims were innocent.

    Based on… what exactly?

    The clear implication is that “number of Hezbollah member > victims = no innocent victims.”

    And then you instantly jump into defending genocide. Holy fucking shit I honestly can’t communicate with words how disgustingly pathetic I find that.

    No, I’m not gonna engage with your whataboutism and start arguing with you about how “Hezbollah deserved this absolutely pathetic terrorist attack.

    “Brought it on himself brought it on himself”

    You fuckers still haven’t realised that Hammurabi’s law makes the whole world blind, huh? That was almost 4000 years ago, ffs. Read a book, preferably a modern one and not some tome of propaganda from thousands of years ago.

    You’re literally defending the death of a 9-year old girl. You have to be sick in the fucking head to do that. Honestly.










  • This is the sort of thing that I love reading on the internet.

    Sorry to disappoint you, but most of that text is found offline — as it’s an excerpt from Douglas Adam’s “The Restaurant at the End of the Universe” (sequel to “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”). I probably should’ve attributed it.

    If only doing things from the PoV of the speaker (you), that means 6~9 tenses for what most languages have 2 (past and non-past) or 3 (past, present, future).

    And then you’d have to account who knows what, which version of a person you’re talking to. Say you’re having a conversation with someone before traveling in time to a time in which they’ve not timetraveled, so it’s either their subjective past or future, but then you continue the conversation, so you’d have to account for both the speakers perspective and the person being spoken to, who would then be subject to two different tense “totalities” since the conversation with them would have been taking place in two different times at the same time.

    I seriously suggest reading Douglas Adams and Terry Pratchett for that sort of thing. I used to use Pratchett books as a substitute for weed when I was a bit over twenty.



  • *tense marking is fun in time travel.

    One of the major problems encountered in time travel is not that of becoming your own father or mother. There is no problem in becoming your own father or mother that a broad-minded and well-adjusted family can’t cope with. There is no problem with changing the course of history—the course of history does not change because it all fits together like a jigsaw. All the important changes have happened before the things they were supposed to change and it all sorts itself out in the end.

    The major problem is simply one of grammar, and the main work to consult in this matter is Dr. Dan Streetmentioner’s Time Traveler’s Handbook of 1001 Tense Formations. It will tell you, for instance, how to describe something that was about to happen to you in the past before you avoided it by time-jumping forward two days in order to avoid it. The event will be descibed differently according to whether you are talking about it from the standpoint of your own natural time, from a time in the further future, or a time in the further past and is futher complicated by the possibility of conducting conversations while you are actually traveling from one time to another with the intention of becoming your own mother or father.

    Most readers get as far as the Future Semiconditionally Modified Subinverted Plagal Past Subjunctive Intentional before giving up; and in fact in later aditions of the book all pages beyond this point have been left blank to save on printing costs.

    The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy skips lightly over this tangle of academic abstraction, pausing only to note that the term “Future Perfect” has been abandoned since it was discovered not to be.




  • You’re not supposed to sit on the motor, my man.

    Youre supposed to put it in a frame of some sort.

    Now I definitely agree with the point you’re making, but unless you’re like 300+ kgs, 500w should be fine for personal transport.

    I had one board with a 500w engine that went 63km/h with a full battery and my ~75 kg of mass on it. It didn’t have much torque, though, but it was fast. On the other hand, these rentable e-scooters we have, have like 350W engines and are limited in speed to 25kmh, but have amazing torque, even my brother can get up steep hills on those, and he’s genuinely 1.5x the man I am, size wise (at least). Hills that my 500w fast scoot didn’t manage with me on it.

    So it’s not just the raw power output of the engine which matters, is my point.

    Personally I think we need a framework paradigm shift. I know it would require a ton, worldwide, but just like how pedestrians got sidewalks in the early 20th century when cars took over the roads, we now need another split again. In that there should be three lanes, pedestrian, light vehicles, then actual road.

    With like a small escoot and a bike you could still use pedestrian ways as well, but any faster or larger e-transports could have their own lane to use. Small e-cars as well. No power limits, but some sort of little regulation.



  • You cannot do that with an LLM.

    If I want to go and read a Harry Potter book, I presumably have to pay someone something (excluding library services because those are services provided for actual people, not AI’s)?

    This LLM clearly has read Harry Potter and Chamber of Secrets, and is merely refusing to display the data it already has on it. “Data” in this case meaning the work, the book.

    I’m not for current copyright laws, but I find defending these hypocritical companies despicable. I’m sure you’re able to imagine that if it suited OpenAI, they might argue the exact opposite of what they’re arguing. Companies don’t really argue things in good faith, rather always arguing for the thing that will be the most profitable for them, no matter the veracity.


  • OpenAI is arguing “we’re not using copyrighted works in a way which would require us to pay anything, the machine is merely extrapolating patterns”.

    But then it does go on to quote materials verbatim, which shows it’s not “just” ‘extracting patterns’.

    If I were to put up a service called “quote a book” or something, and it just had a non-AI bot which would — when given the book and pages — quote copyrighted works, would that be okay for me to make money on, without paying anyone I’m quoting? Even if they started to use my service to literally copy entire books?

    Why are you defending massive corporations who could just pay up? Isn’t the whole “corporations putting profits over anything” thing a bit… seen already?