Sentrovasi

I think the point they are trying to make is that in this situation, the perpetrator would have said she tripped and stabbed her with a knife if she didn’t have access to a gun. It’s not a gun issue, this person just genuinely wanted to murder a child that got on her nerves.

It is actually safe, though, and all this fear-mongering based on misinformation rather than what actually has been said by not just Japan but the IAEA (and admitted by SK) is really hindering efforts at sustainable energy.

The person started by saying they were not religious. Feels like you’re just looking to offend some religious people… on an atheist community. Kinda proving their point there bud.

I haven’t watched it, but Ado’s songs are amazing and are a huge pull factor for me.

I’ve literally never heard about it until this post.

Looking at the reviews seems like a shame as the only complaints are the hardware limitations. Still won’t be getting it until I finish (at least some of) my backlog.

It’s not the atheist part that sucks, just that a community for people who don’t believe in something’s (as opposed to a community for people who believe in something) lowest common denominator is basically hating something else, so you get a lot of condescending posts.

Doesn’t help that a lot of posts are also very edgy, because atheism tends to skew towards the younger generation. I cringe every time, but at least it’s not as bad as people taking the opportunity to be racist in the name of atheism.

Exactly.

On the plus side, maybe this will be a bit more economic incentive for the countries affected not to drag their heels on climate control.

I genuinely had students believe that what ChatGPT was feeding them was fact and try to source it in a paper. I stamped out that notion as quick as I could.

I think the problem is more that given the short attention span of the general public (myself included), these “definitions” (I don’t believe that slavery can be “defined” as good, but okay) are what’s going to stick in the shifting sea of discourse, and are going to be picked out of that sea by people with vile intentions and want to justify them.

It’s also an issue that LLMs are a lot more convincing than they should be, and the same people with short attention spans who don’t have time to understand how they work are going to believe that an Artificial Intelligence with access to all the internet’s information has concluded that slavery had benefits.

In case I was unclear, I meant it more as “people think that nothing can be done”. I was addressing the overall sentiment of many of these comments that seemed so betrayed that their constitution didn’t protect them from climate change.

I don’t think there is a constitutional right to not get hit by giant meteors either.

I think the need to peg action to constitutional rights is a very uniquely American thing. In most other countries a simple addition to the legislature might suffice, whereas here if it’s not in a constitution written many years before climate change became a popularly known thing, suddenly nothing can be done.

Then possibly something needs to change - add a new Amendment or something. But to claim that old laws written with an old understanding of how the world works needs to somehow carry the semantic weight of something it was never written to do seems a bit much.

I think comparing vaping to drinking water is disingenuous - it is not needed and has active harms. Just because one thing is less harmful than another doesn’t mean we can’t regulate both heavily.

The scary thing to me is that humans are predictable, or at least, predictable in their unpredictableness.

With AI, it’s a black box I don’t understand. When it suddenly crashes, I literally will have no idea why.

I guess the difference is we expect humans to fuck up, but autonomous driving is meant to eventually be the thing that replaces that and stops us fucking up.

I get his point though - just wearing one of them really has no LGBT affiliation: it just looks like a monochromatic watch. Maybe it’s that subversion that Malaysia is afraid of.

There’s a reason people evolved altruistic reactions and tendencies, and that’s because on some level, altruism and trust in a community is good. How could anyone trust anyone else in a society where backstabbing is essentially the norm? Building giant projects like power plants could not exist without humongous inefficiencies if everyone were to constantly be trying to insure themselves from everyone else’s manipulation and making sure that they have a slice of the power pie and are not beholden to anyone else. If a society of Good people are all able to trust each other beyond any doubt (because Good people are inherently trustable), they can actually do insanely long-term plans knowing that those following them will continue to meet their obligations. Resources will be split more evenly ensuring maximisation and therefore a larger force.

Your example is also incredibly simplistic because nobody wins in a nuclear scenario, and that’s why Good would be opposed to it. It doesn’t mean they’re against other means of stopping the issue that don’t contravene international laws (which, by the way, would be 100% made by Good people because Evil people would have no reason to be a party to any of these treaties).

If nuclear war happens, everyone loses.

With conventional war, it’s a wash, but I’d give it to Good, with one side having harsher tactics (but also a chance of internal conflicts and opportunistic coups) while the other side has more resources but may only fight defensive wars.

With no war, Good wins - seems like a win for Good to me overall. The only problem is in real life it’s much harder to separate the Good from the Evil, and most people (myself included, probably) are somewhere in between.

I don’t think OP is guilty of this, but a lot of people think that current AI-generated content is going to sound like something that doesn’t know how to be human or what humour is. That’s a fundamental misunderstanding, I believe, that thinks that the LLMs that are popular now have any kind of actual sentience, and simply lack experience or understanding.

Fundamentally, they’ll instead sound like exactly the most average or boring (but informed) person, except maybe a bit more repetitive, because they’re trained on data and not coming up with independent thoughts. Someone who writes in a unique way and has a unique sense of humour is far less likely to be an AI than the average (yet somehow more accepted) everypost.

This is how they move in Xiangqi, Chinese Chess, because if the one straight in front of them is blocked, the move is illegal.