FriendOfDeSoto

Yes and no. If you order your “gold kit” off of an ad aimed at boomers worried about losing their houses, it is probably scammy.

If you’re very rich and worried, you could stash away a bit of bullion at your home. You’ll have other things of value you could trade on the black market of total societal collapse before you’d need to tap into that resource. If you’re not very rich, a gold bar is not going to do you much good because it’s a big chunk of change tied up in one item. You’re more likely to need smaller denominations, like coins or rings, to pay for stuff in the apocalypse. Or you need to learn to smelt metal. The scam of it all is that people with a financial interest will advertize gold as the safe resource in times of high perceived crisis when the price of gold is already high or rising. It makes much more sense financially to watch the market and buy when it’s down.

Gold is also something that needs the economy to come back before you ran out of other stuff to barter with. If our apocalyptical total collapse lasts a long time, gold will not be as valuable as drinking water, food, or shelter. Smokes (incl. vape juice) and booze might be more useful for a longer time.

I’m not rich and I’d sooner go down the prepper route than buying gold.

Like some of the other commenters here, I would not be surprised if that were so. Because racism.

However, I wonder if the premise of your question is true. Are there really no stories about Mexicans in fairy tale Europe? Or Japanese at the court of King Arthur? Or would they have you justify it more than a European in Wakanda? I’m sure Hollywood would care less about these stories but does that mean no one cares? I’m not sure. And since I’m not reading a lot of Mexican or Japanese authors I can only speculate.

The allure of stories like these is the unknown factor, the exotic, the strange. Thanks to centuries of colonization of the rest of the world, Europe is not exactly unknown or considered to be an exotic place in the rest of the world. This might contribute to a cultural bias.

This has to be in the top 5 of story threads they should pick up again in any show. Conspiracy bugs are on one. Then Living Witness backup doc. What’s the gamma quad like post dominion? Maybe followed by Moriarty with a mobile emitter. Etc.

You want the current laws applied. I say the current laws are not good enough to get anybody convicted, no matter how rich they are. And since I’d much prefer to live in a world where I’m wrong, let’s stop arguing.

Americans, as a general population, don’t give a shit about Myanmar, may not know it even exists.

I would say that’s irrelevant for the crimes committed. And not just Americans would struggle to find Myanmar on a map. Or really care what’s going on there unless it’s rooting out phishing farms using abducted foreigners.

I commend your view on the matter, that when it comes to their children they will do something. That may turn out to be true. However, that’s not going to be enough to get anyone at meta convicted under the current laws. They are running under a cover of diffuse authority and supervision internally and section 230 externally. Abhorent drug pusher comments are not admissions of guilt. They have good lawyers. We need new laws, more regulation, and fines that make Wall Street worried.

If these things were clean cut, they would have been dragged to court already many times over. For messing with teenage girls for a laugh 10 years ago. For tacitly approving genocide in Myanmar. For cheating on their video views during the highly successful pivot to video. A good lawyer will get them out of this one too with but a slap on the wrist. They exist in a gray zone where they can fuck up as much as they want to without having to fear great consequences. Vote for politicians who want to regulate these companies more.

So what they’re saying is that when you train a model on material biased against minority groups it will turn out to be biased against these minority groups? Truly shocking, totally unexpected, and really no one could have foreseen this. Because bias in so-called AI was really just discovered this morning! JFC.

If it bursts we’ll get a lot of data centers looking for something to do. And RAM prices will come down but … What’s causing the bottle neck right now is that your average RAM factory needs a couple of years from designed to built to working. So the supply is limited right now while the demand is high. While us end users can’t use the data center gear, in a pinch they could use ours. So the bottle neck gets tighter. So if the bubble collapses, supply will increase and that will bring prices down. If it bursts about two years from now, all the hastily built RAM factories will churn out cheap RAM. But none of this is guaranteed, not the busting and not the dead cheap prices. Because the demand for RAM will not drop off a cliff, it will most likely decrease slowly. All this processing power in post-burst idle data centers will find a way to be used - with what I do not know. There will still be a higher demand for RAM compared to pre-ChatGPT times. So RAM will not flood the market, we will just return to a relative equilibrium of the market.

I don’t think this is right-wing specific. You could probably draw similar conclusions coming from an Islamist angle. And this so-called AI is going to be next “frontier” is not all that clear to me yet. It’s a nebulous threat at this stage that starts with a lot of “imagine if” arguments. We don’t know yet. It’s worth paying attention. But we don’t know if HitLLMer chatbots are going to cause more damage than the concentration camp simulation games that preceded them.

There is a good 15% of people who are drank the koolaid right-wing believers. I don’t think that number has changed much in the last century. The number that changes is how many of the less extreme or undecided people in the middle they can convince they’re right.

The internet is only as regulated as the least regulating country on this planet. So all it takes is a tiny island nation or a principality left over in time to break the chain. It’s also conceivable (imagine if!) that a fine, upstanding citizen like Elon Musk uses the change he found in his couch cushions to circumvent any regulatory efforts anywhere to distribute otherwise regulated content via his private satellite network. The answer cannot be “let’s limit speech more.” The answer must be “fight back with truth and facts.” If asshole ideologists use all the digital tools available to spread their bullshit, we need to fund initiatives that counter that speech with the same tools.

Is this a bad use of so-called AI? Yes. Is this illegal? I’m going to say no. One of the reasons why Google tried this is because in various markets they’ve been dragged to court or coerced to fund news initiatives because they used snippets from publishers in their search results word-for-word. A not insignificant number of publishers has been lobbying pretty hard against them for giving you their headline and a couple of phrases as a snippet. Those publishers are dumb if you ask me but they were able to bend laws to their will and limit the usefulness of the link, the cornerstone of the internet. So you can sort of understand their motivation why they would try this. And it was only a test from what I’ve heard. So bash Google for all the truly evil shit they’re up to. This issue is dumb but not really worth the outrage.

The thought behind the post is worthwhile to ponder and discuss.

Personally, I don’t think it’s as dire as the text makes it seem. The speculation that a steadfast refusal of showing text only on PF might lead the AP protocol guardians to include a dummy pic in every post seems to me to be in the “possible but outlandish” category.

If the premise of AP was that every user should be able to see everything everywhere then defederating from certain instances shouldn’t be possible. But that’s a feature, not a bug.

The tree of the fediverse is big and nobody needs to saw off any branches. A picture only branch can sit next to a hypothetical text only one. I can see an argument that newbies to those particular branches could be more explicitly made aware of the filtering they will experience. While I was reading the text about the users who thought they saw everything from Mastodon on PF, my first thought was: this strains credulity. But then again, users are dumb. I hadn’t realized for a while that shared posts don’t show up in my PF feed on the app either.

I don’t think anybody could become too big for their breeches on the fediverse because the fediverse is in no position to challenge the incumbent corporate platforms. Don’t get me wrong, I love it here and on Mastodon (and on PF). But if you come from those polished centrally organized platforms and you’re not willing to invest at least a little bit of time into learning how federating works (also refer to users are dumb above), you’ll already be disappointed and put off before you realize you now need to also become your own algorithm. The threat scenario that PF could become so big that it can dictate protocol also presupposes that AP is the protocol that will endure forever. And with AT it already has a competitor waiting in the wings. As I said up top, the thought about how one dominating branch could damage the whole tree is worthwhile. But in a dramatic shift from this metaphor: we are in no position to have to cross this bridge any time soon.

Another reason why PF won’t be getting out the chainsaw is its usability. It’s only great for looking at pictures. It’s terrible for having discussions about them unless you only use the website. I’m using the Android app and it’s not great. Features came and went. The UI leaves a lot to be desired for me. It currently feels a bit abandoned because Dansup is more preoccupied with challenging TikTok. I still like PF because I go there just to look at pictures. I go to Mastodon for memes and dry remarks. And I don’t feel like I’m breaking the protocol.

This image may be a bit wonky but convenience stores don’t go out of business just because 24h supercenters exist. They both exchange ice cream for money but one of them has a bigger selection of flavors. PF is 7/11, Mastodon is Walmart.

These names tend to be attached to them after the fact. I imagine there were a few Leonardos or Johannesses roaming about at their time so much like Alexander became The Great to set him apart from all other Alexanders, these names are scribes’ and historians’ shorthand to make clear which Leo or Joe you were talking about. And a few centuries of historical telephone later they seem to fit perfectly in our first name/last name system. Which in western Europe really only became officially standardized with the Code Civil from our friend Napoleon.

Or where they were from: da Vinci, Gutenberg. The Bible also doesn’t have a lot of action in China where last names were a thing before Jesus.

You can take your gaslight and shove it up your Baader-Meinhof-Effect!

I say we stop listening to the opinion of people who are heavily invested in this industry for future prognoses.

Somebody took shots from the air of her home. She tried to get them removed from the public sphere. That caused headlines and as a result more people saw them attached to these news stories than ever would have if she hadn’t made an issue out of it.

Didn’t google, didn’t read the other comments.

While I think of all non-animated Trek shows, DS9 had the best first season, it still contains a lot of dogs. Move along home, anyone? My point is first seasons are rough. Discovery gets better in S2. I would watch it that far before you start SNW because it’s basically the backdoor pilot for that show.

I don’t think a mutinous commander is that outrageous a plot line in a universe where Riker once had Q powers, Janeway had warp 10 lizard babies with her pilot, Sisko poisoning a planet’s atmosphere on purpose, or where a man like Jonathan Archer was made captain of anything.

Is Disco the best Trek show? I don’t think so. I think overall it’s better than PIC though. So if you have suffered through that, you stand a good chance of being more delighted by Disco.

I think there are two general (human) media preferences at work: “if it bleeds, it ledes” superceded by which deaths are more extraordinary. So soldiers murdered in peacetime is noteworthy. They could’ve become accountants but chose a career where there is a real and high risk of death. Btw I fear it’s that death math that made medical professionals drop out of noteworthiness post-pandy, i.e. the threat is real but the risk has gone down again. I think children dying generally of tragic circumstances will be noteworthy. Nurses contracting AIDS or non-famous people dying of natural causes become less noteworthy. And I use noteworthy here as what they chose to cover in their newsrooms. They have financial interests to consider as well, which brings us back to “if it bleeds.”

The American filter generally erases many “mundane” gun deaths from visibility. Either people are so numb it doesn’t register as the tragedy that it is or it doesn’t get covered. There are plenty of places on earth where a single gunshot fired in anger that would make headlines.

There is a worldwide blindness to traffic deaths. We have just accepted that this is how many people die. So if something more interesting happens elsewhere, the t-boned accountant on the way to Walmart just gets dropped.

So there are a number of factors that influence what makes the news or not. The list goes on.

I would also say that media coverage is not prescriptive for who you should feel empathy for. We cannot all feel all the tragedies on this planet at once. We’d go mad. You pick and choose as a defense mechanism. So if you don’t feel that much empathy for these national guardsmen, I kind of get it. If you don’t like how much media coverage it’s getting, I can definitely understand that. The problem is just that when you say this out loud you open yourself up to criticism, like: you don’t feel for the people who died while sworn to defend your freedom! What about children and nurses? That’s just whataboutism! Etc. So I would suggest you follow your own heart and change your media consumption when it bothers you. Or you’ll end up in a culture war debate about whose lives matter more.

You don’t show him the stupidity of his ways by sleeping with that lady. You either find a way to confront him about that. Or you unattach yourself from this toxic person by finding other, better friends. Frankly, I would give him a piece of my mind and then find other friends anyway.

I don’t think I’m leaning too far out this window when I say: no, there isn’t an optimal size. It depends on so many factors. How many people? Is this urban or rural? What’s there neighborhood like? Facilities, public transport, doctors, grocery stores, etc.? What’s the crime rate like? How long is the commute to work? People have different priorities and make different choices as a result.