LOGIC💣

For me, the important thing is that this is a vibrant community.

That means that from the mods’ perspectives, they don’t get too loaded down with moderation work, or need to defend themselves and create friction with the community.

It also means that when people want to contribute to the community, they’re not afraid of what the mods will say. If they post without reading the rules, like probably most people do, it’s really the poster’s fault. But if they are afraid to post even after reading the rules, then I think that has a freezing effect on the community.

As for people who are looking for loopholes, I think they’re trying to make the mods’ lives harder, and so I don’t really think they’re worth worrying too much about. They’ll probably get banned sooner or later because that is the attitude of a troll.

Just my opinion. I’ve never been a mod, and I don’t think I could handle that responsibility. I just try to be empathetic with everybody involved.

You’re right. One problem is, even though mods already have the power, specifically saying in the rules that the criteria is subjective sounds like something that a mod would make when they are tired of having to explain their moderation choices.

They can just say that it was low-effort, and problem solved. They don’t need to explain themselves, right?

But when the rules are vague, I think they’ll end up with more complaints from people who have different criteria of low-effort from the mods. This sort of interaction leads to accusations of mods power-tripping.

If the mods can nail down exactly what is low-effort, like, “X will always get removed. Z will never get removed unless it violates other rules. Y may be at risk of the moderator’s mood. You have been warned.” If they nail things down a bit more, then they will probably make things easier for themselves in the long-run than just keeping things vague.

Plus, if the rules are not vague, then people can discuss them safely when the rules are changed. When rules are vague, people will simply be upset that moderation was sprung on them, and everything will be discussed while people are upset. My belief is that people best discuss things while calm, and not while experiencing one person having power over another.

I haven’t read the article, but I have read previous accusations of the same thing, so I assume it’s the same.

Basically, the new AI companies are all losing money, but they are all investing big money in each other which makes it look like the industry is doing well.

Did you make a similar comment to OP, who only spoke negatively of a well-used and well-understood system?

What is OP’s proposed alternative? What’s a realistic plan to get there?

Here’s what OP said in the body of their post.

Most european countries use 2 round elections or proportional representation.

Although I’m not sure when they wrote that. The post was edited, so it’s possible that it wasn’t there when you first saw the post, and didn’t re-check the post before writing this comment.

What is your reason for saying that?

Just saying something negative makes it seem like it’s a bad idea, but that just encourages people not to change at all. A voting system that tries to satisfy the Condorcet criteria will be far better than any FPTP system.

It’s easier to tear down than it is to build up. What’s your proposed alternative?

The vastness also makes it much harder for aliens to find Earth. The most likely reason for us to find aliens visiting Earth is if Earth was originally seeded life by those aliens.

You’re acting as if normal people think about things before forming an opinion.

When you want to explain other people’s actions, you should first imagine that they never think about anything, that they’re incapable of reasoning, and that their opinions about others tend to be formed the first time that they notice those others, which is often the first time they are bothered by them.

If you cannot explain their behavior in that way, then you should start to explore the idea that they’re intentionally doing things as assholes. This is essentially the same idea as the old saying, never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. Whether you agree with the underlying concept, I find it’s an extremely useful tool to predict the actions of others.

The issue is that Americans on the Left would be offended to learn that their political leader was a complete hypocrite, so they assume that Americans on the right would feel the same way. Meanwhile, the truth is that Americans on the Right only pretend to have moral standards, while in actuality, they will simply follow their leaders regardless of what they do.

I think that the concept behind the question is flawed. Robots have no basic reason to help humans, so if any human life gets better, it’s almost certainly because there are humans secretly controlling the robots.

If robots actually did take over, they would likely have some purpose and their goals with regard to humans would be to keep us from interfering with that purpose. Don’t get confused and think it’s going to be like the movies.

In the main picture, about half of those videos use filters that do something based on the location of the person’s head. Unless they’ve changed the definition since I went to college, that would be classified as a type of computer vision, aka AI.

I’d hire a private investigator to find out the true identity of the Batman.

what would you do with an old dell server?

I thought this post was going to be a sea shanty.

I had a phone that I put the charging cable in backwards, and the port was completely broken. Bought a wireless charger and never had any problems.

(Whoever decided to standardize phone chargers on that connector should be put into prison.)

Today, we have 0%. At the beginning of the Biden administration, we had 95%. The policies of that administration really caused us to lose practically the entire China market. - NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang

The article says that both Biden’s and later, Trump’s policies have decreased NVIDIA’s market share. He’s really phrasing it in a favorable way to Trump. Like, the same way, you could say the following, “At the beginning of the Obama administration, we had zero deaths from COVID. Now, we have millions.” Just skip over the part that is inconvenient for propaganda, right?

However, the loss of NVIDIA’s market share in China isn’t only attributed to the previous administration, since under President Trump, Team Green had to halt the sales of its H20 AI chip temporarily, and they were resumed only after the firm agreed on a ‘revenue sharing’ model with the Trump government. More importantly, with US-China trade relations being influenced, NVIDIA also suffered a significant setback from China, as domestic regulators and authorities began persuading Chinese Big Tech companies not to use Team Green’s AI chips.

Also, Jensen Huang’s statement betrays an insane naivete about China. Newsflash: China always tries to take international industry and make a domestic Chinese version. If you have a 95% share of something in China and you’re a foreign company, that simply means it’s related to some fresh technology, or that it’s virtually worthless. If it is believed to have value, China will have their own stuff before you know it, and don’t expect IP laws like patents or copyright to slow them down. They don’t give a shit about that stuff for foreign companies.

This reminds me of how police abuse any new tool they’re given.

Like how while trained dogs can actually sniff out drugs, when they’re given to police, they get retrained to simply alert whenever the police want them to, and essentially become a flimsy reason to let police violate your rights and search anybody they want to.

And the police suffer zero repercussions for their actions. If they don’t find drugs, there’s nobody who’s going to take them to court and force them to retrain their dogs or to disallow drug dogs from being used as reasonable suspicion.

Since you said, “one more movie”, I guess it has to be a movie actor. Otherwise, I’d probably pick an author like Shakespeare, who was also an actor, and obviously, he’d be acting in something new that he wrote. Wouldn’t it be better to end up with a new work?

Otherwise, I’d choose a universally beloved actor who would be willing to make a serious movie that speaks out against what is happening today in America will authority, conviction, and gravitas. Like, Charlie Chaplin starred in The Great Dictator. Maybe he’d be excited to star in a movie that shits all over Trump and MAGA.

Your hand? I think you mean your biological food dispenser.

If space is limited and there was no other choice

I think there’s always a choice to just not have drawers there. Like, literally just choose to have the door sweep clear. Even if you moved into that house, you can even just remove the drawer completely.

My mother has Alzheimer’s and everything important has a tracker in it. Although as the disease progressed, we had to take away most of her important things, like wallet and keys. We still have one on the remote control, though.

Yeah, I have no problems if you honestly give something a try and don’t like it. But the people who judge without trying are acting like small children. I’m not sure why anybody gives their uninformed opinions the time of day.