embedded machine learning research engineer - georgist - urbanist - environmentalist
Exactly. When the accused has paid off half the jury, you shouldn’t put much stock in the verdict.
The only thing I care about when determining whether something is a genocide is the facts of the case (which are overwhelmingly in favor of describing the Uyghur genocide as a genocide), not the outcome of a highly political vote by countries all with their own motives and interests.
Imagine if someone defended nazis with “they were calmly denying the Holocaust”. I’ve seen far too many tankies denying the Uyghur genocide every chance they get. Like you say, it doesn’t matter the tone; genocide denial is itself a line you don’t cross.
The existence of the Uyghur genocide, for one
How do so few people in this comments section see the obvious satire?? It’s clearly making fun of both landlords and absurd tipping culture.
Enshrinklification of the internet
It’s funny how people always use play it like “oh, it’s just differing opinions” when what they’re actually defending is indefensible malarkey like nazis and tankies. They know if they made a meme saying we should “try to understand” nazis and tankies, they’d be downvoted to oblivion. And so they hide behind a shield of “differing opinions”.
These cretins have a right to post nazi and tankie shit on their own instances – them’s the beauty of the fediverse. But I also have a right to not want hate speech, genocide denial, and Hitler/Stalin/Mao simps polluting my feed. It’s not mere “differing opinions” when one person’s opinion is “Holodomor didn’t happen, and if it did, the Ukrainians deserved it” or “Holocaust didn’t happen, and if it did, the Jews deserved it” or whatever apologia they wanna peddle.
You were right; we already got a salty lemmygrad user elsewhere in this thread now
It looks like it might be Lake Baikal. It’s a huge lake in Siberia that freezes over like this.
In francophone Switzerland, they use septante, huitante, and nonante for 70, 80, and 90, respectively. Much more sensical, imo.
Yeah, I’m working at a company that traditionally makes digital signal processors for telecommunications, and even we’re using AI for actual practical applications. The current project I’m working on is applying an object detection model to detect different signal types in 2D spectrograms. The old way takes like 15 minutes to scan and detect across a wide band. This technique is likely going to be an order of magnitude faster (at least based on preliminary results) and lower-power, as you only need to capture one set of samples, then let the computer vision do most of the rest. The old way to scan for signals required taking a bunch of RF samples, which was very wasteful of time and energy, but there wasn’t really an alternative until now.
Anyhoo, all that to say I agree with you. It’s crazy to equate AI’s capabilities and potential to that of crypto.
It’s why I think worker-owned coops should be more common. Research shows that they’re a more resilient business model than hierarchical businesses. I think it’s because they can largely avoid the principle-agent problem, wherein executives and investors act on behalf of the company, but their personal incentives do not necessarily align with the company’s. For example, a CEO has a vested interest in pumping up profitability in the short term, even if it’s by slashing R&D funding and alienating customers long-term, so they can get nice numbers to pad their resumé. Likewise, investors just want their investment back.
With a coop, overall control of the company’s decisions is guided more by the long-term health of the company, as that’s what is best for the workers. It aligns incentives, avoiding the perverse incentives that cause hierarchical businesses to make unsustainable, short-term business decisions.
Approved those permits because they wanted to or because of court rulings?
Republicans have a storied history of abusing the court system to get what they want, making Dems look bad to us common folk in the process.
https://www.vox.com/2023/5/11/23719914/texas-judge-shopping-national-policy
I had a numerical methods class where the prof let us do the assignments in whatever language we wanted. It was nice because 1) fuck MATLAB, and 2) I’m a shill for Julia, so I got to do all my assignments in Julia. I saw on github at least one previous student for the course had done their assignments in Fortran. I suspect the vast majority did their assignments in Python, though.
Exactly. Simply having enough fissile material for a bomb was a huge limiting factor for building a bomb. It took several years of refining for the US to have enough for the Trinity Test, Fat Man, and Little Boy. Any physicists in Japan at the time had to have known that fissile material was a limiting factor, given that the theoretical concept of an atomic bomb was well-known physics by the time. The second bomb was to prove Japan couldn’t count on the US having exhausted all their fissile material on the first bomb.
Exactly. The users who have moved here are disproportionately commenters, power posters, and moderators from reddit. I was a top 1% poster on reddit, lots of OC, but I’ve essentially stopped participating there. I occasionally comment, but I don’t make posts on reddit anymore. If a significant fraction of power posters (and not just the reposters) and moderators migrate to lemmy, lemmy will have disproportionately good content, while the reddit experience will degrade further into reposts and poor moderation. I think lemmy already has disproportionately good posts and engagement, just still pretty small at the moment.
Ah, I’ve already finished my master’s in engineering. I’m hoping to get into making tools for making regenerative agriculture, agroforestry, etc. less labor-intensive and thus more cost-competitive. Good suggestion for others only just starting their educations, though!
It’s truly insane how unsustainable modern industrial agriculture is. I’m hoping to dedicate my career towards sustainable agriculture somehow. Soil health is planetary health.
Exactly. Monopolism is bad, but markets can be a ludicrously powerful tool. I’m personally a georgist, which is an economic ideology that holds we should have free markets free of rent-seeking and monopolism. It aims to do that mainly by policies such as land value taxes, Pigouvian taxes (such as carbon tax), severance taxes (taxes on the extraction of finite natural resources), elimination of bad taxes and bad regulations, and intellectual property reform.
When the market fails to solve climate change, that’s because carbon pollution is a negative externality, which tends to cause market failure. Price carbon correctly using taxes, and suddenly you have what is agreed upon by basically all economists as the best, most efficient climate policy.
When the housing market goes amok and housing becomes unaffordable, it’s usually because land is fundamentally scarce and NIMBY regulations are manufacturing an artificial scarcity of housing. Much of those NIMBY policies like zoning make it literally illegal to build enough housing in the places that need it most. If you tax land – a kind of tax regarded by almost all economists as the “perfect” tax – you also remove the ability to speculate and hoard land. No more hoarding vacant lots in growing cities.
Markets are a tool. It’d be a stupid to throw out a powerful tool just because it fails under certain conditions. The key is you just gotta understand when markets fail and why, then implement technocratic policy to correct those failures.
I don’t have a similar chart bookmarked for US media, but here’s a great (and kind of disturbing) chart for ownership of all major Canadian newspapers, along with whom they’ve endorsed for PM going back decades. Kind of telling that they’re almost all simps for Conservatives. And almost all owned by Post Media.
You might like single transferrable vote (STV), then. You have districts with several seats in them (preferably ~5), and then do a ranked-choice ballot to select the candidates who will fill those seats. Key advantages over proportional representation are that it maintains the idea of a constituency and that it maintains voting for individual candidates, not just parties.
Downside, of course, is that it’s not as proportional as proportional representation, but it still achieves pretty proportional results. That’s the tradeoff for maintaining constituencies and individual candidates.