I’ve always said that Turing’s Imitation Game is a flawed way to determine if an AI is actually intelligent. The flaw is the assumption that humans are intelligent.
Humans are capable of intelligence, but most of the time we’re just responding to stimulus in predictable ways.
There is but you have to think of each party as having sub-parties within them. There aren’t external coalitions between parties but internal coalitions within the parties.
So a guy like Bernie Sanders is left, though not technically a Democrat, he caucuses with the Democrats effectively creating a coalition. There are many members within the Democratic Party that are also left wing, and others that are center, and others that could be considered right wing.
The Republicans are similar, but have an internal coalition with the far right MAGA faction. Which causes them a lot of problems.
The primary system is effectively a run off system which is used to determine a final two candidates to vote for in the final election. This system is old and has some bizarre traditions and has vulnerabilities to there being a third party spoiling everything.
Obviously it’s a crusty system that developed without planning, but the the Presidential election it’s not that dissimilar to France’s run-off system, just takes more time. And the legislatures having coalitions between people with different politics happens everywhere, it’s just happening within the parties and requires people to vote in primaries to get more representatives that have similar views to their own to make up a greater percentage of the coalition (which also happens everywhere).
In fact having coalitions within a party gives people more information when voting. If I’m voting for one of a dozen parties I don’t have a say over how a coalition is formed after an election. Someone declaring which coalition they intend to be a part of before the electorate votes gives the electorate both a say as to which individual they want (via primaries) and which coalition they want (in the general election).
Yeah it’s a joke that’s at least a decade old, probably over two decades old.
And one of the most important aspects of comedy is knowing your audience. If this was said to a group of linux sysadmins I guess it’s not dangerous, but it’s still an old joke so not going to get much of a laugh. But if it’s said to people new to linux, then it can cause damage. So it’s either not funny (we all heard that one before) or an asshole prank, so not funny and malicious.
Why do you give youtube the benefit of the doubt? You believe youtube to be a reliable source of information?
BBT is a popular TV show, I’m certain you are capable of finding it on a streaming service somewhere. If not there is the possibility of pirating it. You are capable of watching the show yourself to verify the claims coming from youtube. Or you could trust people who have seen enough episodes that tell you the youtbue video is false.
Or you can go on being a “I did my own research on youtube” type of person. I’m not your mom, do what you want to do.
Did you watch the entirety of BBT?
I’ll watch your video after you’ve watch BBT an analyzed it yourself. Otherwise what’s the point of discussing anything with you rather than whoever made the video you linked?
I haven’t watched the entirely of BBT, but I’ve seen enough episodes to know the thesis of the video that you’re repeating (without doing any verification yourself) is false.
Are you paid by the person that made the video? Why do you feel the need to defend something that’s discussing something you’re unfamiliar with? We aren’t talking about some arcane secret scrolls that are locked away under guard that only a few are allowed to view. It’s a popular TV show that you could watch yourself to check whether the video is correct. Why won’t you do this? Why do you trust a random youtube video that has a profit motive in promoting a false narrative over people that have actually looked at the source material under discussion?
Yeah and Bill Maher said Justin Trudeau was a dictator because he called some protesters disgusting. He left out the part where the particular protesters he was referring to had Swastika flags.
So would you say the Bill Maher took Trudeau’s words out of context? If so you’re no different from your father in law. Therefore you’re a fan of Rush Limbaugh!
See how easy it is to take things out of context and use specious logic to form a narrative about anything?
This is why critical thinking is important. The point Justin Trudeau was making was the Nazis are disgusting, therefore Bill Maher was taking things out of context. The point of Rush Limbaugh was right wing grifting, so him saying shitty things isn’t out of context.
Applying even more critical thinking, how are fictional stories different from political commentators? Stories often have character arcs where a character starts out as being wrong, they learn something, improve themselves and are no longer wrong. So you can easily make many stories appear to bad in a political context by giving examples from the earlier part of a story (where the character was wrong) and leave out the part of the story where the character learned they were wrong and why.
Political critiques of works of fiction are fertile grounds for grifters to create false narratives. They should always be taken with a grain of salt. Did you see Ben Shapiro’s critique of the Barbie Movie? Really convincing if you never saw the movie.
I haven’t watch all of BBT but I’ve seen enough that I can tell you that in the beginning they were losers with misogynistic tendencies. Women are disgusted by them and rightfully so. Over the course of the show they learn to respect women and because of this they are able to form healthy relationships. Yup, you can pick out examples of misogyny, but how do you tell a story about misogyny being bad if you cannot portray misogynistic tendencies out of fear of “video essays” taking it out of context to create a false narrative?
Since it’s apparently fine to demand things from strangers on the internet, you will need to provide me payment for the research you’re asking me to do to provide you with these examples.
Or not. You can go on living your life believing whatever random video pops up on your youtube recommended list without ever questioning it. Why would you think I should care if you believe in weird shit? The onus on you to question the content you get on the internet, not on other people to debunk every single video an algorithm shoves in your face.
You could “prove” any long running show is misogynistic or racist by combing through it and taking things out of context.
You really should be more be careful of youtube videos. Many of them just invent controversy for clicks. A silly TV sitcom is far less likely to propagandize you than a youtube video.
Think different!
Because not thinking in compliance with the Apple approved meaning of “different” is prohibited by the system.
Republic?
House Walton will hear of this treason against the Royal Family!
Imagine if 20 years ago you wrote a sci-fi story where people spend a most of their time staring into rectangular devices that sends information that corporate controlled AIs decided they should be seeing. After staring at these rectangles for too long, people become angry and paranoid. Sometimes hypnotized to the point where some people commit mass murder or try to destroy their own democratically elected government.
If you wrote that story 20 years ago it wouldn’t be published because it would be too unbelievable. But here we are.
The sad thing is that the Oil Industry is well positioned to solve this problem. They have a workforce that’s skilled at building offshore structures that could building off shore wind farms. They have people skilled at drilling who could be developing geothermal energy. They have chemical engineers, pipelines, and tankers which could be used to create and distribute hydrogen based fuels.
And they most certainly have the financial resources needed to make that transition.
They all like to market themselves as being in the “energy industry” instead of the oil industry. They could actually do that. Become green energy companies.
Only problem is that this would cost them their quarterly profits. Long term they’d be able to dominate the green energy market instead of being replaced by it.
But they simply aren’t thinking long term at all. It’s really insane when you think about it.
It’s both really.
Finger pointing at corporations while doing nothing may not be as bad as corps finger pointing at us while doing nothing. But it’s still bad.
Everyone needs to make an effort on this.
Hoping corporations will somehow grow a conscience isn’t accomplishing anything.
Imagine if nearly everyone was using public transit instead of voting out politicians because gas prices got a little too high. That might make the corps think there was more money in green energy than drilling up more oil.
Corporations are not going to fix the problem out of the goodness of their hearts no matter how much people whine about it. It’s only going to happen when voters (and consumers) demand it.
Yeah some of the app devs are going to implement support for lemmy while also continuing to support reddit.
Looking at this from a business perspective, I think that would be the smartest move. When a business partner unilaterally jacks up the price, while it might feel satisfying to tell them to go fuck themselves, it’s probably not the smartest move. The smart move is to continue doing business while making partnerships with others just in case the asshole partner jacks up the price again.
I think it might be a thing where these apps will use lemmy for the free version while offering reddit for a subscription. If this is the case, we’ll see a gradual increase of users on lemmy with a gradual decline of users on reddit. Older people who stubbornly stick to reddit will pay the subscription, while younger people that can’t afford a subscription to reddit (and have no attachment to it anyway) will use the free versions and use lemmy.
The law has the concept of consideration and there is a level of judgment used on these kinds of things. Intent is part of the law too. Which means if someone falsely puts a cheap price for a product to get you into a store (or something like that) they’ll likely be on the hook for that, it’s false advertising. But if someone simply made a typo and the price on offer doesn’t line up to reasonable consideration, then it’s not binding. There was no intent to deceive, and the price isn’t reasonable consideration for the product.
So while there may be times you may be able to benefit from someone making a mistake, there will be many times you won’t. That’s not a bad thing since the same law protects you if you make a mistake. If someone puts into the fine print of a contact that you should give them all of your possessions, and you didn’t notice it, the law would also throw that out because they didn’t offer reasonable consideration for your possessions.
So you don’t have recourse (nor should you) in the scenario where someone made an honest mistake like with a typo. Sucks that for a moment you thought you were getting a laptop for a ridiculously cheap price, but think about what it would mean on the other end. You’d be getting a laptop without paying a reasonable price for it, the company would have to eat the cost, and some poor bastard would probably be fired for making a typo. Is a cheap laptop really worth someone else losing their job?