The level of your argumentation:
Are you a firefighter or a medical doctor? If not, you’re obviously in favour of fires, death and disease.
Why aren’t you donating all of your stuff to homeless people? Or are you happy all those people don’t have a home?
Why aren’t you saving the world already???

You know, demanding change and maybe showing some sort of protest does not mean you need to do those things exactly as you would like to see them, especially if those efforts wouldn’t change anything on the larger scale and rather lead to a bunch of problems in your life.

I wonder how you’re breathing. /j

Where do you get this attitude that everything should be provided to you for free and you’re entitled to it?

From (non-capitalistic) utopic ideas, where humans try to be excellent to each other.

If we’re speaking of transformer models like ChatGPT, BERT or whatever: They don’t have memory at all.

The closest thing that resembles memory is the accepted length of the input sequence combined with the attention mechanism. (If left unmodified though, this will lead to a quadratic increase in computation time the longer that sequence becomes.) And since the attention weights are a learned property, it is in practise probable that earlier tokens of the input sequence get basically ignored the further they lie “in the past”, as they usually do not contribute much to the current context.

“In the past”: Transformers technically “see” the whole input sequence at once. But they are equipped with positional encoding which incorporates spatial and/or temporal ordering into the input sequence (e.g., position of words in a sentence). That way they can model sequential relationships as those found in natural language (sentences), videos, movement trajectories and other kinds of contextually coherent sequences.

Today on the internet: Fun with spherical geometry.

I wonder how it must have been like to be the one who thought one day, “I’ll pick coffee beans out of monkey shit and drink that shit!”

NEVER consume media legally

Given our current economic system and supposing that you can’t change it for now, how would you support a living for media creators (movies, shows, games, art, music, whatever)?

Genuine question. I find myself on the fence about this. Currently, I consume media legally due to several reasons:

• Supporting the creators and thereby incentivising them to produce more of stuff which I enjoyed.
• I can afford it.
• I would like to keep it legal.

Stuff like this (although not affected since I don’t live in a country with that shitty laws), but also the decline of quality products as a result of companies trying to maximize their profit margins by producing a lot of cheap trash, as well as the criminalization of consumers and the fact that the profits are not shared equally among the creators but rather a few get the most while the rest gets some pennies (an issue present in virtually every business), make me really favour the idea of getting a pirate hat.

However:
If everyone would do this, this would lead to the death of the media industry, since no one would be able to pay for the productions and everyone involved anymore.
How would get those productions then?

Really, I think the only way to change this is to impose much better laws on the one hand and switch to a different, better, economic system on the other hand. But I don’t see these things coming soon. Which leaves me with staying legal.

I would like to read your thoughts on that. (And those of everyone else who wants to chime in.)

Tramp stamps are out?
Trump stamps are in?

How do the authors know what a dragon speaks like? Were speaking dragons a common thing back then or…?

I’m with you on the opt-out vs. opt-in part. That’s not a nice move. Regardless of that, Firefox is still the best choice. I hope they will continue to improve.

I’ve read the announcement. Sounds reasonable and sufficiently private to me. So saying “Mozilla wants your data” sounds misleading and like an overreaction to me. Also might help to mitigate the arms race in privacy protection versus tracking for ads and worse stuff.

Mozilla is definitely going to try more scummy crap like this in the future.

How do you know that?

Even if, there will still be alternatives. But right now, Firefox is the best browser with regards to privacy and security. It even passed minmum ratings by the german IT security authority, contrary to other widely used browsers.

As I like to say:

Take me as I am or fuck off.

(Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t work on yourself if you have good reasons to become a “better you”.)

deleted by creator

Don’t drink alcohol.

A super important life lesson is to always put yourself and your mental health before the company.

This should be the norm. Companies usually don’t care enough about you. They try to nurture loyalty in order to keep wages down while a few up in the hierarchy reap most of the rewards of your hard work.

If you were lying in the death bed, you probably wouldn’t look back and think: “oh gee, I wish I would’ve worked more!”

So always put yourself first over some company.

Where is the line going to be drawn?

As far as I know a lot of vegans for example draw the line at a specific set of complexity of the being. Usually the property “has a central nervous system” is sufficient, which is why some vegans even eat oysters. The wording “sentience” is also used often.

The argumentation is also that emotions are tied to higher processing capabilities. A lot of animals fear joy, pain can get sad etc… Plants don’t. Reactions of plants to external stimuli are rather very primitive reflexes than the result of active processing and reflection about stimuli, i.e. thinking, which is something only observed in animals with brains.

Don’t pin me down on that, I’m not a vegan. That’s just something I picked up through discussions with them.

I simply don’t know enough about nutrition to understand whether or not humans can be ‘maximally healthy’ on a vegetarian or vegan or pescatarian or w/e diet

Idk what a “w/e diet” is, nor can I speak about pescetarians. But from what I’ve read it is perfectly possible to live a long and healthy life on a purely plant-based diet (respectively non-animal-based, bc mushrooms are not plants).

I can point you towards scientific literature on that topic if you would like to have some assistance.

It makes sense if you think about it that way:
What do we get from eating meat for example? What is it, that makes it somehow valuable for our bodies? What stuff is inside food in general which makes us need to eat?

It’s a bunch of specific chemicals, which we have come to name “nutrients”. You don’t need the flesh of the animal per se, you need the iron, the fats, the proteins, vitamins, minerals et cetera. We humans need a specific set of those nutrients in a specific amount in order to maintain a healthy and functioning body (also influenced by individual factors like whether someone has iron resorbtion issues or if someone is a child or old or pregnant or an athlete or whatever). Other animals require different amounts and possibly also different sets of nutrients.

The question for us is now whether we can get those nutrients from purely non-animal sources. And the answer is: yes, we can. That doesn’t mean eating only vegs will be healthy in the long run, as you probably need to supplement vitamin B12 and possibly more. But those supplements can be made from purely non-animal sources.

It does make me wonder if having some cows that wander around eating grass and killing one or two of the herd periodically is really worse from a moral standpoint than covering entire ecosystems in solar panels to run the scaled up meat labs.

If you are concerned about ecosystems, you know that the animal industry is one of the major contributors to climate change, right? And the fact that we use a huge chunk of agricultural land to grow animal food? In the EU alone about 71 % of agriculture is dedicated to feed animals. Source for the latter.

Furthermore, solar panels are not the only means of energy production. (And those are and should be regulated according to approrpiate environmental laws such that sensitive ecosystems are sufficiently protected.) There are also plenty of other renewables and concepts to meet demands such as rooftops covered in solar panels, wind turbines etc…

From an ecological perspective it would be best if we completely stopped producing animal based products.

General fact:
People need a specific set and amount of nutrients to survive.
Specifics:
Amount and composition is influenced by individual factors.

Various nutrient sources exist and you can cover all your required nutrients from non-animal sources if you want to.

raise lifestock in a species-appropriate manner

Who decides what “species-appropriate” is?

If we would base that on the nature of animals, we would have to let them roam freely and not actively breed or kill them. Consider for example how short the lifespan of cattle has become. In nature about 20 years iirc and now 5 years tops.

Doing so would collide with an efficient meat industry and in the end raise prices. Nobody would want that who isn’t a vegan, vegetarian or someone who has other reasons not to eat meat or consume animal products in general.

I wonder how far more advanced aliens would decide to raise us in a species-appropriate manner if they would visit us and came to the conclusion that there is no reason to respect our free will.

We are basically doing the same with animals and I find it curious how we as humans come to decide what the best way to captivate, breed and kill animals is.

Eating animals is natural

And if something is natural, does that always create virtue?

It is also natural not to brush one’s teeth, or to have sexual needs or not to wear pants. Does that imply that it’s okay to go around and rape people or flash them?

It’s also only natural to have the urge to kill someone sometimes if one is especially angry. Why are we stopping them?

We as humans are at the capacity to derive ethical values and decide whether something natural is also “good”.

And animals in nature are eaten far more brutally and painfully than even our mass-produced lifestock.

How is this relevant?
Yes they die in nature and get killed by predators who need them to survive, which can help to stabilise ecosystems (see for example how the reintroduction of wolves has helped in some problematic regions).
But:
Do we need them to survive? Are we stabilsing eco systems by breeding and killing animals? Are we living in the wild nature like those predators or do we have gained a lot of control over it and have the privilege to live in an established society?

Bluetooth