So, models trained on data from the entire world are more left-leaning than the “center” in an instrument calibrated for the American public? Unsurprising result.

It means it was said by Philippines. It’s a quotation.

I agree. I don’t think it’s the case and evidence seems to point that way. Edited for correctness.

I feel like a lot of those things are entirely orthogonal to what side one chooses. Like, Russia attacks Ukraine, the US attacks Iran, China does ethnic cleansing (edit: I don’t think that’s the case, but Western media claim that), Israel does too. So the best we can do as regular citizens is to ensure we don’t restrict our views.

Those two countries make up a large part of the world together, and furthermore many other countries align with their views. I think the point of this “meme” is that dismissing those views as fringe risks normalizing only a small part of the global discourse.

Wise comment!

Super cool, I’ll try it out!

Tank Man. It’s not an image, it’s a video, and unfortunately nothing special happens in it, the man just has a talk with the tank driver.

On the same line, one would expect to see at least a mention to the official figure from death certificates (254 dead if I recall well) when discussing death tolls.

This article seems to have a bias against the Chinese government. The tone is very negative throughout, especially near the end. It mentions crimes that are not confirmed by international observers and jumps to conclusions that are pretty extreme.

There’s good chance that the cost won’t come down without new hardware. Which those companies will need to buy from scratch, trashing everything they already purchased.

I am very optimistic. But according to that data, I would need to be in the top 5% most optimistic people to counter the risk increase from the medication I take.

Just ask any model to write minimally complex formally verified code and watch it crash and burn.

Develop a tool that enables users to circumvent government censorship and surveillance

This one’s spicy…

Not sure if the wording makes 100% sense. For example, that could be bypassed by simply making the same chemical without using petroleum-based products. The fundamental problem is that consumers expect information about how likely a product is to harm them, and the different measures of “artificilialness” are just a marketing device that doesn’t fulfill that role.

Well, Trump doesn’t like Sanchez, and Trump now controls most American social media… it’s the most logical move on his part.

Countries are not “bad”. There’s this thing called diplomatic ties, and if you keep them no one will start a war against you.

There is a theorem that relates wealth distribution and individual risk, so this is a great analogy.

I feel like nothing we say is 100% a joke. Maybe 99% at most.

All three pictures are in capitalism though.

Hungarian news sites seem to be posting this same piece of news, which supports its authenticity. The only bias here would be whether the media choose to report this or not (reporting bias). So far most European and American outlets are silent.

Good point, thanks. The way I modeled the adjustment was by assuming that most usage is captured by Statcounter but there’s movement back and forth to a reservoir that flies under its radar, in bursts, with zero net movement in the long run. So I used a geometric mean of the source data scaled by the square root of their averaged ratio.