My dude, do you know what statistics is? The paper doesn’t say anything of that sort. Measuring the proportion of people who hold a particular belief is nothing like what you describe

Exactly, thank you for adding this.

The fact that AI is making reverse centaurs out of us really sticks out to me whenever I watch Star Trek. The way they interact with the computer in Trek makes me wistful for what AI could be, if it were being developed in a more human centred way.

Solidarity fist bump.

You are committing a logical fallacy called “affirming the consequent”.

There’s so many hard hitting quotes in this game. The one that hit me the hardest was actually the thought cabinet thought you get for trying to open the unopenable door.

Edit:

Found it.

“There is no way to open the supply depot door. Accept it. You cannot open all the doors. You have to integrate this into your character. Some doors will forever remain closed. Even if every single other door will open at one time or another, maybe to a key, or maybe to some sort of tool meant for opening doors… But this one will never accede to such commands. A realization crucial to personal growth. Crucial.”

I felt so betrayed by this. I had spent a point to unlock this thought. I waited with excitement for its completion, which would surely allow me to unlock the door. But instead, I felt more called out than I have ever felt in my life.

This reminds me of a phrase/meme a Finnish friend told me about. Because Finland is such a small country, it’s not often that it’s relevant on an international context. This leads to the following phrase being said when Finland is spoken of:

“Suomi mainittu; torilla tavataan!” which translates to “Finland mentioned; let’s go meet at the town square (in an excited, celebratory manner)”

Along those lines, my response to this post was “Lemmy mainittu; torilla tavataan!”

Edit: removed “Welcome to Gboard clipboard, any text that you copy will be saved here.” that I had accidentally pasted

This is a great article that lays out the problems with SRY testing in a clear way. I’ve bookmarked it, as I suspect I’ll find it useful to send to someone at some point

Ed Zitron’s newsletter has some incredibly useful resources to reference. (I would link it, but I am sleepy at the moment, I apologise).

My opinion is that unless you feel like it’s putting your career at risk, it’s worthwhile to discuss the negatives of AI. When people who aren’t very techy are surrounded by people bigging up AI and there’s no-one dissenting, it’s quite common that they will assume that this is just something that’s too complex for them to understand, so some people are sort of conditioned to believe that AI must be magic, even if their own personal experience or intuition tells them that it’s bullshit.

I also believe that anti-AI takes will age like wine; even though there are some legitimately awesome uses of this tech, overwhelmingly, the majority of the shit that’s being pushed is dumb as hell. AI can be a useful tool in certain cases, but not in the way it’s being rolled out. Instead of empowering humans, it’s just making more slop and hallucinations to wade through. I’m reminded now of a good post from Cory Doctorow that discusses AI and “reverse centaurs”. I can’t explain it better than him, but you could probably find it easy by searching, if you’re interested.

I remember I’ve had problems finding android auto settings before. I thought I might be able to help, but (On a Ulefone running mostly stock android).

I think the other person who replied to you has a good suggestion though. For me, I can find it at “Settings” -> “Apps” -> “All apps” -> Android Auto -> “additional settings in the app”

They sure don’t make it easy

And if they show their decency and use their position of power to unequally enforce the law in the pursuit of genuine justice, this is them being a bad cop, in that a cop’s individual sense of justice is not meant to sway them. To ignore or undermine unjust laws also undermines their own role as a cop — one might even say it makes them less of a cop.

Even without corruption or the use of excessive force, policing as an institution is inherently fucked up. When laws are unjust, an impartial enforcer of them is also unjust. Some go into the job with the admirable goal of trying to be a force for good, but their efforts will only strengthen a broken institution that will gradually leech the goodness from them.

I wish it were possible to trade boobs. I’m quite fond of mine, but they do get in the way when I’m sleeping sometimes. Imagine if we could have community boobs, where we could trade boobs at will: “Hey Ann, do you still have the party boobs? I’m going shopping for date clothes later so I need them”.

It sounds absurd, but the more I think about it, the more I think “why the hell haven’t I read any cyberpunk fiction that does this?”, because this would totes be as thing.

A friend was taking the piss out of NFTs once and I, not knowing what an NFT was at the time, misheard them as saying “non-fungible titties”. We, all of us being very gay, found this hilarious because our experience of seeing breasts had shown us that breasts are indeed non-fungible.

For me, (a bi woman,) it depends on the context. If I’m surreptitiously checking out someone, then yeah, I have preferences. In practice, none of those preferences matter when I’m at motorboating distance from a partner’s boobs. If I think of every set of boobs I have seen in that context, I can legitimately say I have no preference.

I don’t know, I think that by the time it gets to that point, it’s impossible to see the boobs as an abstract, aesthetically pleasing thing. Instead, I see them in the context of the entire person, and that feels infinitely more erotic. At first I thought that maybe it’s a case of all the women I’ve slept with having boobs that fit their frame, but I don’t think that’s the case either. Big boobs on a small frame: Hot. Small boobs on a small frame: Hot. Big boobs on a large frame: Hot. Small boobs on a large frame: Hot. Wonky boobs on a medium frame: Hot.

Reflecting further, I think my mentality might be because some years ago, when I was tripping on 2CB, something clicked in me and I suddenly understood “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”; I realised that there was beauty and ugliness in everything, and I could just choose to see the beauty. It worked wonders for my own body confidence at the time, and I’m realising now that the sentiment has stuck with me deeper than I thought. I reckon that by the time I’m sleeping with someone, I’ve made an active choice to opt into seeing their beauty. If I weren’t able to do that, I probably wouldn’t get to the point of seeing them naked.

When I was in high school, in the 2000s/2010s, our final maths exams included a calculator and a non calculator paper. As far as I’m aware, that’s still typical today. The advent of calculators required us to rethink our approach in teaching and setting tests in maths, but that doesn’t diminish the usefulness of learning long division.

It’s really trippy to reflect back on my pre-ACAB days. I recognised that the ways things currently work is far from just, but I was still in the “surely not all cops” mode of thinking; even if I understood how much of this injustice is a systemic problem. Whilst it was several years ago now, it still feels recent enough that I am baffled at how misguided I was to hold the beliefs I did and still consider myself anti-ACAB

I remember vividly that one day, it occurred to me that if ACAB seemed excessive and unreasonable a to me, that perhaps I was operating on incorrect assumptions about what ACAB actually meant (because me being wrong surely is more likely than everyone who says ACAB either being deeply misguided, or inflammatory edgelords). This led to me googling “why ACAB is right” and finding a lot of things that made sense to me.

I don’t know where I’m going with this. I think perhaps my overall point is roughly that I think it’s good to label these things with ACAB, where appropriate, because whilst the acronym itself doesn’t have much explanatory power, it is useful as a distillation of a bunch of beliefs about the justice system that are actually somewhat commonly held. It makes me think of the saying “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink”. Years ago, I was a silly horse who complained of thirst while standing next to water; sometimes it’s useful to say “dude, you’re literally standing in water”.

That’s a really concise formulation of my own beliefs on this matter. My opinions on how society should handle justice are experiencing extended renovations, so it’s useful to stumble across complex ideas distilled so effectively. Thanks!

I think the best solutions to problems like this take a sociotechnical approach. That is to say that in this case, I think that a crowd of people recording is more powerful than any app. I live in a country where police violence is less prevalent than in the US, and I have seen times when the police have tried to intimidate someone into stopping recording them. One of those times, it was successful, and the bystander got scared and stopped. Another of those times, someone who was better informed overheard the exchange and whipped out their camera too, and explained that the police had no grounds to ask that, especially given that we weren’t interfering with their investigation of the original person.

It is unfortunate about the ACLU app though. Tech tools like that helped protect individuals who were trying to hold the police accountable, which is a useful step towards normalising a healthy suspicion of the police. I haven’t read the above article yet, but I suspect the only reason why this footage wasn’t destroyed or confiscated is because the cops didn’t realise they were being recorded.

Indeed. Whilst many people (such as AlsaValderaan, based on their comment) understand this, there are also people who don’t seem to understand that unpredictability and more extreme weather is evidence of climate change, not against it.

As you say, “global warming” hasn’t been used by scholars in and adjacent to the field in many years, but the term and it’s connotations seem to have stuck in people’s heads. As a scientist, I have an instinct to say “this is a messaging problem, and if scientists better understood how to use rhetoric, perhaps people would have a better understanding of climate change”. However, I think that’s an incorrect instinct that only exists as a form of “cope”.

I do think that scientists, on average, need to get better at communicating their research to laypeople and policy makers. However, it low-key feels like victim blaming to lay responsibility for muddy public understanding of climate change, given that the primary cause of this is moneyed interests who stand to profit from the ongoing rape of the planet’s ecosystems.

My expertise isn’t in a climate related field, but I have friends who do work in that sphere, and it feels like there’s a sort of collective trauma amongst researchers (I mean above and beyond the despair that many of us feel at political negligence exacerbating the climate crisis). I can’t imagine how it must feel to go to a conference and present some research that says “this extremely specific thing that I am a hyper specialised expert on is at risk of permanent loss, here is what needs to happen”, and find that despite unanimous agreement, and everyone else there is shit scared because they have their own hyper specific objects of expertise that are at risk for the exact same reasons; nothing will change because you’re preaching to the choir.

There are scientists who are good at shouting at public policy makers, but they’re outnumbered and outspended by the people and corporations that want more profit. Sometimes people fight for years to implement a particular scheme, but it gets corrupted along the way — usually not from a malicious sabotage of climate action kind of way, but through the kind of bureaucratic incompetence that arises when the people steering the ship fundamentally don’t care about the aims of a project. Policies get progressively watered down, or completely distorted from their original aims. It’s depressing as hell.

Honestly, the only reason I’m still alive is spite. I don’t think climate change will eradicate humanity, but it will put countless lives and ecosystems in jeopardy. For all my privilege, I know that to the ones in power, I am just as much an acceptable sacrifice on the altar to profit as a Bangladeshi textile worker, or a Congolese cobalt miner. The assholes with money are probably going to win this war against most of the planet, but ironically, they’re some of the least well equipped for climate resilience — money only gets you so far at the end of the world, after all.

Even so, I’m not sure I’d consider that true consent. An example that comes to mind is meme generator websites, where they give you an option to make the generated meme public. If you don’t tick that, they still give you the link, but it’s not findable by people who don’t have that link.

I haven’t seen how chatGPT presents the choice to users, but I wonder whether people who check that box would reasonably assume that in wanting to share their chat to certain, selected people, that they are making it viewable to the world I would guess not.

I personally use Vesktop, which I think is available as a flatpak. My primary reason for finding an alternative discord client was that I couldn’t figure out how to get audio working when streaming games in a voice channel; I spent a long time trying to understand the idiosyncrasies of Linux audio before I realised that it was just a Discord problem, and that it was prevalent enough that it had already been fixed by multiple different people.

I believe that overall stability has been better since switching to Vesktop, but it can still be a bit janky. I think that some of this is related to audio problems (possibly a combination of audio and insufficient RAM).