First you said that people should use decentralized platforms. Now you acknowledge that there's nobody of value on those platforms so now you say people should stop wanting to connect in the first place.
I mean, okay? Next time just say social media is a cancer, and don't waste our time moving goal posts.
> that there's nobody of value on those platforms so now you say people should stop wanting to connect in the first place
that's exactly what i said and not a figment of your imagination.
if your social circle mostly exists on instagram like the person that i was replying to mentioned :), then you have no social life. any of these platforms is just an add-on to real social interaction. prioritize the real thing and the platform stops mattering.
> but otherwise increasing the future safety by annihilating the military structure of an aspiring nuclear power for say
The problem is that there's always a very convenient aspiring nuclear power to hit. In hindsight they rarely never were a real threats (Iraq, Cuba). And what became real threats have historically been downplayed by the american government (North Korea).
Iran is real threat to oil circulation in that region, they applied this tactics many times before. Now imagine if we come to current situation 5 years later when Iran has missiles with nuclear warheads?
Feel free to list the details about when, how and why it happened before ;) interestingly none of these scenario would even have happened if they had nukes to begin with, how weird
The only weird thing in this story is that we keep preemptively bombing the same people for at best vague reasons (they were about to attack us trust me bro) and at worst complete made up lies (they have mass destruction weapons, look at my jar of anthrax).
depends how you define "attack us". Iran is part of Iran-Russia-China axis, which goals are very explicit in expanding influence and territories (Ukraine, Taiwan, Syria, Iraq, Gulf states). If they succeed, Western world will be cut from semiconductors and oil and become much weaker.
Might, may, could, potentially, maybe... Virtually nothing happened in decades and now that the US/Israel decided time was up the situation is more fucked than it has ever been, potentially pushing the Iranian government into more radicalism, good job! That will teach them. "we had to attack because they could theoretically cut us from oil in a distant future", how is it going so far?
How did it go in Iraq? Afghanistan? What's up with kidnapping Maduro? Is this what the "western world" is about? Securing resources by bombing people preemptively because they might do something you don't like one day?
You can't look at the recent history of the region and point the finger at literally anyone else other than the US with a straight face lmao, you're the blood thirsty nation who's military industrial complex got out of hand, just watch the latest videos posted by the official white house accounts, only psychopaths would come up with these
> it was decades of very intense proxy wars: Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon. Iran didn't hesitate to attack oil assets
Compared to the US and Israel who only mind their own business and never do any shady things of course. Russia says the same thing about the US in Ukraine, but there it's a dirty propaganda lie, when it comes to Iran it's just the Real Truth ™
Plenty of other nations (including Iran for decades) are not getting this stick. Carrots were even offered. The USA has remained remarkably calm remarkably long. Imagine this had been executed before Hamas parachuted a Jewish music festival? Gaza wouldn't have been sandwiched between Israel on one side and Iran's Hamas on the other. Imagine Iran had fallen (it hasnt yet) before that event. Israel wouldn't possibly have been able to "justify" doing a genocide in Gaza even to its own population!
you are putting words in the mouth of your discourse partner: approaching nuclear weapons capabilities is the reason for attack, waiting until its too late is obviously not considered an option.
Like when Iraq was just about to drop anthrax all over the US? We should study the psychology of normies falling over and over for the same propaganda techniques even when it goes again their own interests
What makes you think Iran was not a real nuclear threat?
The USA even bungled up an operation (with the goal of gaining better intel and internal domestic spies in Iran) by convincing an Iranian physicist to carry convincing plans to an address in Iran. That physicist got so sh-scared (who wouldn't) that the nuclear bomb designs would be so transparently bugged that he feared for his life. He did the unexpected: he recognized which parts of the designs were obviously manipulated for failure and corrected them before indeed depositing at the address. He feared and figured that other physicists in Iran would quickly spot the same manipulations in the weapon design, and he would effectively be committing suicide by thus proving himself a spy!
you don't train such huge proportions of the population towards physics without nuclear weapon ambitions
you don't enrich uranium to absurdly high levels for peaceful energy production (sorting isotopes is expensive)
you don't assassinate with hydrogen cyanide (generic non-brand equivalent of Zyklon B) random minorities (like Mahsa Amini) just because they would like to study law, and happen to have a less-regime aligned attitude, unless you are running a chemical weapons program (which apparently wasn't really halted after the Iran-Iraq war)
> If I'm looking for human engagement, forums make sense. But for an informed discussion, I'm less certain that it's wise to be exclusionary. There is a case to be made that lower quality comments should be hidden or higher quality comments should be surfaced, but that's true regardless of the source, innit?
Good news then, you're currently on a forum! So we all agree that humans > AI, regardless of your thought on the intelligence behind it.
> Good news then, you're currently on a forum! So we all agree that humans > AI
I made the post to specifically disagree with that notion: I think that excluding top-quality AI output from the discussion will reduce the overall quality of forums, because it's now the case that top-tier LLMs > average human.
How do we assess top-quality output? The moderation tools for that already exist. Doesn't scale well? I'm guessing the days where ai can do it cheaper and faster will soon be nigh.
That's right, very few of us have unique or interesting opinions! But now filter our thoughts through a machine and it's even less of us that are worth reading.
> In other words up to 10% of all the crashes Firefox users see are not software bugs, they're caused by hardware defects! If I subtract crashes that are caused by resource exhaustion (such as out-of-memory crashes) this number goes up to around 15%.
Crashes caused by resource exhaustion are still software bugs in Firefox. At least on sane operating systems where memory isn't over-comitted.
That, and 50% of the machines where their heuristics say it is a hardware error fail basic memory tests.
I've seen a lot of confirmed bitflips with ECC systems. The vast majority of machines that are impacted are impacted by single event upsets (not reproducible).
(I worded that precisely but strangely because if one machine has a reproducible problem, it might hit it a billion times a second. That means you can't count by "number of corruptions".)
My take is that their 10% estimate is a lower bound.
He was wrong about refusing to make gcc more modular by fear that it would be used to insert proprietary plugins, which is why llvm is behind every new language or dev tool now and gcc is only relevant because the kernel still depends on it (for now).
His opinions on software have been largely out of touch for the past 20 years. People might yearn for his ideals, but it's just not the world we live in.
Feel free to say microslop as much as possible, but it should be noted that many people will automatically dismiss your opinion when you do. I don't know if I agree with doing so or not, but it is more common than you'd think. And no, they aren't just microsoft shills.
I mean, okay? Next time just say social media is a cancer, and don't waste our time moving goal posts.
reply