Grand and intoxicating comment

Je sais pas trop ce que tu veux dire par variété quand tu proposes de remplacer des trotskistes (qui sont léninistes) par des maoïstes (aussi léninistes) et des ML (toujours léninistes), ainsi que des anarchistes (ensemble ultra grand avec des centaines de tendances très différentes)

Because “garbage in, garbage out”. Statistical models will by design reproduce any bias in the training data.

For instance, in 2018, Amazon scrapped a hiring AI tool because it discriminated against women. It did so because it was trained on previous Amazon hires which, it turns out, had a sexist bias. It’s a testament to the power of these statistical methods that the tool managed to discriminate against women in spite of gender having been stripped from the data: the model managed to reconstitute the information based on other elements to a statistically significant degree.

Applying this to crimes, can you think of any biases in police action or the justice system that could be reproduced by the AI? Communities that get unfairly targeted, or others that benefit from blind spots?

Furthermore, there are some other issues.

One is confirmation bias: if the AI predicts there will be crime in an area and a patrol car is sent, it will confirm the prediction… In that police tends to find crime wherever it goes. If this data is then again used as input, over time this will bias the AI more and more.

Another issue is dilution of responsibility. If a human being gives an order that turns out to be illegal, they are legally responsible and can be prosecuted. If however that same person tells their subordinates to obey the AI, and that AI gives illegal orders, who is responsible? In truth, the same people are still in charge – they can feed and train the AI however they like, and ignore its output if it isn’t as they wish. But it is a legally and mediatically gray area that would be very useful for enforcing illegal orders without risking prosecution.

Don’t worry, governments will just use both

The issue is deeper than just the skill of the artist. It’s that “good” music is that which stirs strong emotions in ourselves… But feeling emotions at the workplace is cringe and unprofessional and no one wants that. So the music has to be bad since it must be “professional”.

He was trying to reproduce the dynamic of the OK hand sign.

What happened then is that neonazis online thought it would be hilarious to use the innocent sign as an in-joke. Leftists caught on quickly since they are obsessed with fascism coming back and the whole thing was quite public. Then the OK sign spread gradually from online self-professed neo-nazis to real life hard right politicians. Finally, when leftists said “this is a neo-nazi symbol”, they got laughed at in the media by these rightist politicians along with the apolitical neutral commentators.

This had two effects : first, it paints the left as a bunch of crazies and the hard right as relaxed funny types by comparison; second, it acted as a shibboleth. What I mean by that is that if became possible to know people’s politics by simply showing them the sign and asking “what is this?” — you’d get either a puzzled look, a denunciation of far right politics, or a knowing chuckle and wink.

Musk tried doing the same thing with his nazi salute : build some plausible deniability with the “I give my heart to you” comment, and then immediately afterward tweeting stuff like “the Nazi attack is sooo tired”. The hard right base recognized the drill and started using it as a shibboleth too.

But it was too much too fast, the whole of MAGA wasn’t ready to commit to literally Nazi salutes, so it was written off as Musk being a weirdo.

You can tell it wasnt a simple mistake because then Musk would have produced some kind of blabd corporate apology afterward, not immediately made nazi puns on social media

Most European languages are some almagation and standardization of a patchwork of dialects. English destroyed scots, Tours french destroyed occitan, hochdeutsch largely displaced bavarian, etc. The reason is the dramatic increase in state power in the 19th century (therefore giving importance to the language of administration), combined with policies of “cultural unification” and nation building. So there in fact very much is artificiality in language that is predictable.

The reason Esperanto wasn’t adopted by states when it was invented is because internationalism was seen as either an utopia or a threat by states. The reason it isn’t adopted by the UE now is because it would be a highly visible and unpopular move that would take decades to bear fruit and therefore politicians will never support it. The entire UE therefore learns english, massively increasing the influence of people who brand themselves its enemies.

🙂‍↔️✋ born to die

🙂‍↔️✋ born to live

😎👉 born to increase GDP

Sure, this is a gross oversimplification, and SM is very wide; but the impact of two thousand years of Christianity really is very significant to the western psyche, even among the non-christian.

Things like being bad and deserving punishment or suffering leading to ascension are so close to christian concepts (sinning and hell, the passion of Christ) that it would be surprising for them not to be connected.

And there’s also christian influences in sexuality outside of SM obviously. Stuff like Temptation Island on TV, or just sex being “dirty” in general (as in, engaging in sex lowers one’s moral worth).

Sexual relations are the continuation of normal relations, making sexuality a mirror reflecting society. Findom reflects class relations, D/S reflects gender relations, SM reflects christianity, race play reflects racism, etc.

Reading the Sharks president’s arguments felt like my brain was turning to slurry.

It’s expected nowadays for mirrorless pro cameras to recognize eyes and autofocus on them.

Does it though? Where does the “need” in your sentence come from?

How come the supply chain has no slack to allow for (inevitable) hiccups and accidents? The answer is two part. It used to have them but they were optimized away. It still has them, but you are led to believe they aren’t there because putting this pressure on you allows your bosses to extract more work out of you.

And how come the supply chain is so stressed? Is everything that goes through it so essential that a single late ship is a catastrophe? The answer is obviously not, we are shipping gigatons of drivel across the world that gets immediately forgotten in a drawer or tossed in the bin once it reaches its final destination.

If you are shipping essential goods then there is a safety net of supplies at the destination to absorb any issues in shipping (if there isn’t, clearly these goods were not essential). If you aren’t shipping essential goods, then it’s already factored in global insurance markets, and late shipping is merely someone’s bank account getting bigger at a lesser rate.

Donald Love from III and Vice City is supposedly inspired by Trump.

Voilà qui lui fera la leçon. Qui pensait rester impuni subit un amer retour àla réalité. La République agit de manière ferme et décisive.

How does one get the emulsion started without egg or mustard ?

I love metal but it is famously full of neo-nazis lol. In thrash, Hetfield (Metallica) Mustaine (Megadeth) and King+Araya (Slayer) have all said some heinous stuff. Get into punk if you want an antifa crowd.

I should have been clearer sorry. Wearing a helmet is obviously better in a crash; but, both personally and societally, not wearing one decreases the chances of getting in a crash in the first place.

Helmets are bad for safety because (1) car drivers act more dangerous around cyclists wearing helmets and (2) they discourage people from riding bikes whereas the primary safety factor of cycling, by far, is the number of people cycling.

The idea is the land belongs to everyone, and each is entitled to make use of their fair share of it by simple virtue of being human. You wouldn’t “own” your home in such a society, merely be the current inhabitant of it. If you are familiar with these legal concepts, think of the entirety of humanity having naked ownership of the entire planet, and people having usufruct of what they can actually use.

An example that might help clarify: imagine a trucker working for a logistics company that lends her a truck for long hauls. This trucker might tell people “yeah, it’s my truck” in that she drives it and maintains it and sleeps in it and uses it all the time. Yet legally speaking, the truck belong to the company, which itself belongs to its shareholders — people who might not even have ever seen the truck in question, and only care for the profits it might bring through the work performed with it. One is ownership through usage and the other the current legal concept of propriety; they are in fact quite different.

People coming to your home and changing stuff without your agreement wouldn’t be OK since the freedom of one person stops where that of another begins. How that would be enforced is a an open question — left-anarchism advocates organization without hierarchy, which means it would be possible to form citizen courts and militias, which might belong to a federation for nation-wide or world-wide coordination without a state body. But we should remember the main point of all this however is to remove the main reasons theft is a thing in the first place (along with rectifying the greatest theft of all time), so it can be questioned how much enforcement would be necessary. Certainly not to the current extent where society must bear the weight of the state maintaining a land registry, escrow officers, dedicated justice system, police force, and army to defend it all.

These concepts of “fair share” and deserving of material wealth by mere existence are very weak or absent in our current system, which is built on the core idea that only immaterial things (rights) are granted by default to everyone, and material wealth is only acquired through contracts (work, inheritance, purchase — all these from people who do have all the material wealth one seeks).

You are correct in pointing out that, without a critical mass of adherents, left-anarchism cannot function. However this simply means that rather than being an ideology imposed from above by politicians, it is one that must be adopted by actual people. For this reason left-anarchists usually believe in contributing to local free associations (not necessarily political), promoting horizontal organization there through example, and therefore building a “revolution” from the bottom up rather than from the top down as advocated by some leftist groups.