They are almost certainly a Russian troll. See their comment history.

I understand your point, but I think the logic you are presenting is what is enabling these people. Ask yourself - what is the nuance in the Ukraine war? Fence sitting, and talking out both sides of your mouth about how we should condemn Putin yet also accept there is nuance to these issues is dangerous. It’s not complicated. If you don’t condemn Putin’s actions, you are implicitly accepting/agreeing that Ukraine should be wiped out.

Putin relies on the populace accepting that there is “nuance” to the Ukraine war. Russia has conditioned (or at least is trying to condition) the population (in the west) into adopting this logic but the reality is that there is no nuance to this issue. What nuance could there be to an aggressor invading someone’s land?

They don’t condemn Russia or the US leaders that push Putin’s agenda here - that’s how it’s support. How could it be anything else?

Israel (at least in large part) is why they’re pushing the tiktok ban now. It is a little hard to connect the dots on this because the China-reasoning seems strong on the surface. I agree that China is bad, but there has not been any stellar evidence to show that China censors or otherwise manipulates users on the platform. You can easily go to tiktok and find videos discussing how awful the Chinese government is, information about tiananmen square, Winnie the Pooh jokes, etc. In comparison, the data that came out of the Facebook and Cambridge Analytica scandal was far more concrete, and Congress did nothing. Certainly there were not 81% of house members coming together to force Facebook to sell. Tiktok has even offered to make major concessions about data privacy.

Israel’s war in Gaza is deeply unpopular and the fascists in Israel and here in the US are concerned that they are losing popularity. Tiktok has 100+ million active users in the US and the heaviest anti-Israel sentiment (the government and the US’s relationship with the Israeli government, not the Israeli/Jewish people) is heaviest on Tiktok, which is dominated by young millennials and gen Z. This is leaked audio of the director of the anti-defamation league (a very pro-Israel organization) speaking about this. He basically tells his audience that they have a “major major major… problem” and specifically says that they have a “tiktok problem and a gen Z problem.” Listen to the audio- you can agree or not with his reasoning, but he’s essentially saying that the spread of ideas on tiktok is causing their polling issues.

People like this want to stop the spread of ideas on tiktok because young people are organizing, boycotting, and putting dents in the system. They do not like that young voters are having a larger and larger influence. These young people are also boycotting major companies like McDonalds and Starbucks who have taken pro-Israel stances, and these companies have lost profits from this. All this to say - I don’t think there is any lack of motivation by people with lots of money to destroy the platform where these people are organizing.

It is incredible how much money Israel pumps into our politicians, both Democrats and Republicans. Joe Biden himself is the largest recipient of this money. There are anti-BDS laws (specifically for Israel) in 37 states. I don’t think many people are aware of just how much influence Israel has in the US. It is surprising and disturbing, but I am equally surprised/disturbed at how little attention these topics have received on Lemmy of all places. I don’t think it takes a genius to start making these connections and to start asking questions - maybe this isn’t the full picture but there is a lot of stuff here to be skeptical about. That said, I absolutely do think this kind of information is suppressed on other platforms, and they want to suppress all of tiktok because it’s dangerous to them.

The blockchain is essentially a ledger that tracks transactions (including the creation of currency). One thing that is not always clear is how important it is for a blockchain to be decentralized. When I say “decentralized,” I mean that many different people are operating a server that performs transactions on a larger network. These people are rewarded in currency for their efforts, and are sometimes referred to as “miners,” though this term is changing somewhat.

There are thousands of these servers in a network that are operating on and tracking the ledger for blockchains like Bitcoin or Ethereum. Any updates to the ledger are verified by all of these nodes. As long as 51% of nodes can verify a transaction, it will be added to the ledger. This means that as long as someone doesn’t own 51% of the network, they can’t just inject whatever transactions they want (i.e., fraudulent activity). In practice, this makes these networks very resilient to fraud.

I think this paves the way for a lot of the practical examples you’re looking for. For example, there’s no way for the network to decide to just give tons of money to a single entity for some “economic policy” like Too Big to Fail (i.e., corporate bailouts). This means you don’t have to wake up one morning worrying about whether or not your currency will rapidly inflate because of things like corruption. Another example is the true ownership of digital assets. NFTs have (rightly) gotten a lot of flack for being overpriced JPEGs, but there are real use cases here. A random middleman can’t just decide to price gouge because they own all the tickets first (Ticketmaster). Instead, artists can mint tickets on the blockchain (very important: this ensures authenticity) and then fans can buy them on the blockchain - no middle man required. You still show a QR code at the door for verification like you would now.

It is entirely job dependent. I have been in jobs where it was just a grind and going the extra mile simply put a smile on my boss’s face. In jobs like these the best thing you can do is carve out as many hours as possible during the work week to build new skills or apply to other jobs. I’ve also been in jobs where going the extra mile directly contributed meaningful skills to my resume/portfolio and helped me get a new job with way better pay.

Lexmark seems like such a niche thing to put here but I know about it because it’s based in my hometown. Also it deserves to be placed next to the soyboy.

The guy who leads this group is extremely vocal (almost weirdly so) about white privilege and systemic racism. He is also white. It’s true that many AI models have white-bias. The reasons for this are multi-faceted. Our datasets are grossly imbalanced against racial minorities. I also think I understand that for some darker-skinned races, it is more difficult for the model to extract relevant features from the shitty Flickr photos they scrape for these models.

That said, injecting words into the users prompt to force the model to generate minorities more often is an extremely naive approach. Kind of like if Google added “reddit” to all searches just because it worked for some specific test cases, but ignoring that you now no longer get any site except reddit. Probably the solution here looks like paying a lot of money for high quality datasets as well as investing in user education and more AI explainability of these tools.

Right. And they dismiss these really valid concerns as right wing propaganda or both-sides-isms. Polls right now show Trump polling marginally better than Biden. Shouldn’t this be sounding the alarms for more of us? Biden should be stomping Trump in polls but instead they’re neck and neck. And this is the guy that they’re determined to push.

I don’t even agree that Biden is “the best we got” but somehow everyone is convinced of that. I have a sad theory that DNC strategists see Biden as the most viable candidate because he’s a white male from a rust belt town. This profile lines up with many conservative voters that they think they need to win elections. This explains why they wouldn’t run someone “woke” like Whitmer or Newsome or maybe Michelle Obama. In other words, there aren’t any good ole boys left in the democratic party, or at least any popular enough to actually win (e.g., Joe Manchin).

From the perspective of an ordinary citizen though, Biden didn’t win because of conservative voters. He won because of a large coalition of different kinds of people - moderates, women, minority races, and leftists. Biden has upset that coalition by not pushing harder for codified reproductive rights, his stance on Gaza, and a weak relationship with labor. I worry that while moderates will turn out, that has never been enough to win.

I’m sorry you’re being downvoted for this comment. What you’re saying is absolutely true, the moderates just don’t want to hear it.

It’s the candidate’s job to assuage voter’s fears and convince people to vote for them. If Biden is too frail to do interviews, how is he going to do an election campaign? How is he even able to do this job? We have other people, why does it have to be Biden?

I liked how Jon Stewart put it - when the barbarians (Trump) are at the walls, you want Conan up there leading the charge, not a feeble old man who’s afraid to appear in front of the public.

Bro he’s saying that you’re supposed to realize how fucked up it is (and ideally be revolted) that corporations - who don’t give a shit about you or anyone else - team up to prevent bright young adults from having a career and affording to live as payback for exposing their inhumanity/making them look foolish.

Instead you’re over here like “yeah I lick corporate boot and will gladly accept being stepped on if I get to keep my career.” This girl is a hero for standing up to the likes of cloudflare and we should all aspire to have her courage.

Not a swifty but if she wasn’t a billionaire, I don’t think she would have less “political power.” She is just that popular. I think the distinction between swift and your run-of-the-mill oligarch is that they specifically use their money and power to expand their political power (e.g., buying political party members, burying any dissenters). Could she do that? Probably, and that in and of itself is problematic. I think that this is maybe what you were saying though.

I would dispute your claim about there being a “circular firing squad.” The firing definitely comes from a very specific direction. Politicians like Joe Biden run on progressive ideas (cancelling student loans, legalizing marijuana, healthcare reform, etc) and then all but drop those promises once they get into office. This is the real “backstabbing” in my opinion. These democratic politicians take massive donations from corporations, Israel, billionaires, etc. Who is going to get the most representation from these politicians? The voters or the donors? Four years later, liberals wonder why progressives aren’t willing to jump in and vote for their guy again.

It’s like a cycle. We get a blue wave thanks to young, minority, and progressive voter turnout, then those same voters become completely disillusioned after four years. Why? Personally I think it’s because liberal (especially white middle class) voters subscribe to “vote blue no matter who,” and it’s been going on since well before Trump. They see the success of right wing candidates with total voter unity and think they can do the same thing with their superior numbers. However, these liberal voters get too invested with can we do this when they should be thinking about should we do this.

I personally think this mentality has given Democratic politicians a license to ignore their voters, because they essentially have a monopoly on votes from anyone who is not a crazy fascist. This in turn leads to the same repeated stalled progress and disillusionment. As long as Dems don’t piss off their base too much, they can maintain this position forever while also providing a ton of value to their donors.

All of this has led me to believe that ranked choice voting may be the best thing we could do to turn our country around, because it would give third party candidates an actual shot and force Democrats (and maybe Republicans) to actually compete for votes because voters would feel more freedom to vote their conscience without pissing their vote away. If there are any initiatives in your state to put ranked choice on the ballot, please get involved.

I see this argument a lot, and I am absolutely a hardliner on genocide. That said, I am also aware that a second Trump presidency will be the end of our nation as we know it. It used to be so simple when voting for candidates - it was “evil” vs “more of the same”, but now it’s “evil” vs “genocide as a foreign policy.”

What is the exit strategy for us as a nation? How many times can we stave off a Republican presidency? Even voting blue we are slipping right - how many times can we vote for the Democrats until we’ve made so many concessions that the blue guy is just exactly equivalent to the current red guy?

I’m really trying to argue in good faith. If someone has a decent answer to this, I’d love to hear their side. Otherwise it seems to me like we are headed for some kind of civil war in this country.

This comment is so shitty and condescending and completely devoid of intelligence. It reads the same as “Please do not invoke my white privilege as an excuse to let Trump take away my white privilege.” Liberals love to act like they care about issues but comments like these come off so self-centered. I don’t live in some fantasy world where a second Trump presidency is better than a second Biden presidency, but liberals are so adamant that it has to be Biden. Why aren’t liberals outraged that the DNC is forcing an unpopular candidate down our throats again? The most common response I see is “it’s complicated” but it’s not fucking complicated in the slightest, liberals just want to be comfortable and they’ll gladly roll over and take it from anyone who promises them to at least use lube. Yes I’m talking about you.

I’ve been having the same thoughts. I think liberals, especially white liberals, are scared of a Trump presidency because, for once, the fallout might come down on them. They don’t have to be scared of a Biden presidency, because their lives can continue on as they have been. So then they attack you for saying that the US is already a fascist state, even though it already is for anyone who isn’t white and straight.

To add to this, genocide (as defined by the UN) does not just include directly killing a particular group:

Definition Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

1. Killing members of the group; 2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; 3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; 4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; 5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

So in addition to killing 20k+ Gaza civilians, Israel’s response has displaced countless others with their intense and indiscriminate bombing (see points #2, #3, possibly #4). NYT and other sources claim that up to 1.8 million Gazans have been displaced, which NYT claims is 80% of their population. This is in addition to the conditions Gaza was already being subjected to, such as being denied water and electricity (#3) by Israel.

The evidence overwhelmingly shows that this is genocide. “Figurative” is such a sleazy doublespeak way of excusing the behavior here.

Edit: sorry my link should work now

It’s true. Even in the comments on this post there’s someone adamantly claiming (without evidence) that masks don’t work, despite being presented with a full literature review of studies showing that they do work.

It shouldn’t even take a full scientific study to convince someone that covering their nose and mouth helps to prevent the spread of airborne illness. Their egos are so fragile that any critical introspective examination of their viewpoints would destroy their entire identity. What even are they without their vitriol and hatred for the truth?

I agree, in the context of the tweet, that purchase history is enough to build a working product that roughly meets user requirements (at least in terms of predicting consumed items). This assumes you can find enough purchase history for a given user. Even then, I have doubts about how robust such a strategy is. The sparsity in your dataset for certain items means you will either a.) be forced to remove those items from your prediction service or b.) frustrate your users with heavy prediction bias. Some items also simply won’t work in this system - maybe the user only eats hotdogs in the summer. Maybe they only buy eggs with brownie mix. There will be many dependencies you are required to model to get a system like this working, and I don’t believe there is any single model powerful enough to do this by itself. Directly quantifying the user’s pantry via vision seems easy in comparison.

Also quite difficult from a vision perspective. Tons of potential object classes, objects with no class (e.g., leftovers, homemade things), potential obfuscation if you are monitoring the refrigerator/cabinets. If the object is in a container, how do you measure the volume remaining of that substance? This is just scratching the surface I imagine. These problems individually are maybe not crazy challenging but they are quite hard all together.