It was a typo. I meant to say that the Democratic leadership seems to have put their and their parties interests above those of the people but I wanted to avoid editing my post too much.
It was a typo. I meant to say that the Democratic leadership seems to have put their and their parties interests above those of the people but I wanted to avoid editing my post too much.
I’ve been called many names, including “tankie”, so I’ll take a stab at responding.
I’m not mad about the debate at all. I expected something fairly similar.
I’m mad that Biden and the Democratic leadership seems to have put their own interests above the interest of the party people (edit: Ugh. Terrible typo).
If Biden had gracefully stepped aside and given just about any other Democrat his full support, we’d be in a much better position now. Instead we have a candidate with a ton of baggage and who presents an easy target for Trump’s style of argument. Many mainstream Democrats, including the NYT, are finally starting to realize this. Unfortunately it’s probably a year too late. At this point it would just make it look like Demoratic kingmakers forced him out.
If I went by the modern definition of “tankie” as, an anti-american authoritarian communist. I probably wouldn’t be mad at any of this. I’d be cackling with glee because either of the current nominees will be terrible for the US. Neither of them has a serious long term plan. Neither of them can articulate a policy position. Both of them will continue to erode the power and moral authority of the United States.
Like it or not. Trump is likely to be the next president https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/. At this point it’s probably wise to start thinking about how to limit his impact and how to start cleaning up the mess afterwards.
Biden seems to misunderstand why he won.
He seems to think that people were really impressed with him as a candidate and that since he’s so much more impressive than all the other potential Democratic nominees, he’s the only logical choice to try to beat Trump.
He certainly enjoyed the support of many people who believe that but he relied heavily on the support of several other cohorts to push him over the edge. Those cohorts didn’t like him. They didn’t like him at all. They just hated Trump more, held their noses, and voted for Not Trump.
Biden has been telling several of those cohorts that their priorities don’t matter. He had tenuous support from those groups and he took that support for granted. Many of those groups are now thinking, “You failed to deliver on the one thing we wanted from you. I no longer see you as a significant improvement over Trump.”
Claiming that they’re just throwing a tantrum over a raspy voice further trivializes their concerns and pushes them farther away.
A clever MAGA troll would make exactly this kind of post. All it does alienate critical voters from Democrats.
The question is typically described as “the historicity of Jesus”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
There are similar debates for other famous ancient figures.
The general academic consensus on Jesus (and many similar figures) is that they did exist and many of the details have been fictionalized.
“Worse than expected,” depends largely on the individual and what they were expecting. It comes down to expecting one thing and being disappointed in the outcome.
People who expected him to be an ally of immigrants are disappointed in his border policies.
People who expected him to fix Trumps “easy” trade wars are disappointed in his trade policies.
People who expected him to support labor are disappointed in his ban of the railroad workers strike.
People who expected him to champion human rights are disappointed in his support of the IDF.
He may have met your expectations and the expectations of the majority of Democrats. Biden’s 2020 victory depended on several groups who only showed up because they hoped that he would address their specific concerns.
If we’re going by current usage rather than historical precedent, it doesn’t matter that “antisemitc” was originally coined to refer to hatred of Jews.
In that case we would look to the very common usage that includes hatred of all the other speakers of Semitic languages.
Or we could use the extremist definition of, “Any criticism of Israel.” If we go by that definition a whole lot of people (including many Jews) would also qualify.
That’s fine. If we don’t want to use the word we don’t need to. If we’re going to use it then let’s use it in a non-racist way.
It’s kind of bizzare to say claim that we shouldn’t use the term “Semite” because it’s outdated but then continue to use “antisemite” and claim it’s only about a tiny subsection of the people that “Semite” used to refer to.
There are approximately 330 million Semitic people in the world. Around 15.7 milllion (around 4.8%) of them are Jewish.
If the common usage of “anti-semitic” excludes the vast majority of Semitic people, it’s an outdated, racist term.
We should either drop it from our vocabulary or use it in an inclusive way.
It would depend on how well we can control it.
Ideally the material would be completely nonreactive for as long as you’re using it and then instantly degrade into component elements.
The faster things degrade, the higher the chance that they’ll degrade when you don’t want it to.
A bunch of scientific papers are probably better data than a bunch of Reddit posts and it’s still not good enough.
Consider the task we’re asking the AI to do. If you want a human to be able to correctly answer questions across a wide array of scientific fields you can’t just hand them all the science papers and expect them to be able to understand it. Even if we restrict it to a single narrow field of research we expect that person to have a insane levels of education. We’re talking 12 years of primary education, 4 years as an undergraduate and 4 more years doing their PhD, and that’s at the low end. During all that time the human is constantly ingesting data through their senses and they’re getting constant training in the form of feedback.
All the scientific papers in the world don’t even come close to an education like that, when it comes to data quality.
Haha. Not specifically.
It’s more a comment on how hard it is to separate truth from fiction. Adding glue to pizza is obviously dumb to any normal human. Sometimes the obviously dumb answer is actually the correct one though. Semmelweis’s contemporaries lambasted him for his stupid and obviously nonsensical claims about doctors contaminating pregnant women with “cadaveric particles” after performing autopsies.
Those were experts in the field and they were unable to guess the correctness of the claim. Why would we expect normal people or AIs to do better?
There may be a time when we can reasonably have such an expectation. I don’t think it will happen before we can give AIs training that’s as good as, or better, than what we give the most educated humans. Reading all of Reddit, doesn’t even come close to that.
That’s my point. Some of them wouldn’t even go through the trouble of making sure that it’s non-toxic glue.
There are humans out there who ate laundry pods because the internet told them to.
This is why actual AI researchers are so concerned about data quality.
Modern AIs need a ton of data and it needs to be good data. That really shouldn’t surprise anyone.
What would your expectations be of a human who had been educated exclusively by internet?
Hidden? That’s literally the main argument when anyone surfaces a complaint about Biden. It’s always some variation of, “If we let Trump into the White House again our democracy is over.”
The hangup isn’t awareness, it’s acceptance. People aren’t questioning that he’d try to be dictator for life, they doubt his ability to succeed. Once you’ve seen someone try something and fail it’s reasonable to think they’re just too incompetent to succeed.
Whenever I see people ask for support for the claim they’re typically met with a hail of downvotes and name calling. That may feel righteous but it does absolutely nothing to recruit that person. Instead they’ll walk away with even stronger convictions.
It’s true. Hamas is posting rookie numbers. They’ve got to up their death count by around 10x before they can be in Israel’s league.
There is no single reason. It’s the sum of many reasons. They’re too many to list exhaustively but when we see a concrete example the vast majority of people come to the same conclusion on creepy vs appropriate.
When there isn’t a clear line, trying to define one is misleading. You can always find some couple somewhere on earth with an arbitrarily large age gap where people will agree that it’s the result of informed consent. People then try to make the argument that this justifies all relationships with that age gap even though most relationships don’t have whatever extenuating circumstances made the one example palatable.
Large age gaps are creepy. Whenever someone has to ask if a particular age gap is also creepy the answer is almost always, “Yes.”
There’s not much to discuss. The vast majority of the time it’s creepy grooming and we all know it. It’s technically legal and there may be cases when it’s genuinely a case of consent and mutual attraction but those are the exceptions.
Attempts to find the exact line are futile. “Half your age plus seven” is a rule of thumb, not a clear border.
The girls themselves are mostly “all for it” when it’s people roughly their age. There are exceptions but most girls that age see 30+ year olds as lame old dudes. Most 30+ year olds aren’t going after high school girls either. That’s why we all cringed at David Woodson’s line in “Dazed and Confused”.
The people who don’t want them to “exert this right” are the responsible parents, friends and community who know that a 30+ year old dating a teenager is creepy AF.
The few people who actually support this are mostly rationalizing.
The former richest man in the world gave away much of his fortune and continues to do so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett#Wealth_and_philanthropy
Bruce Wayne is not like that at all though. He’s in a position where he could actually do something about the problems of Gotham City and decides to go LARPing instead.
To be fair, he beats up a bunch of rich criminals too but he whole thing is really more about his ego than about doing good.