I don't know if they understand that their close association with Trump & Musk made the classification extremely easy, politically.
They are historically unpopular and they are dragging all their allies down with them.
Excrubulent
joined 2 years ago
I don't think a comment stating that you don't think a comment asking for a source is very interesting conversation is very interesting conversation, yet here we are.
This is my consistent strategy - labor above liberals, but anyone further left or independent goes above them both. Below liberals is reserved for the out-and-out bigots, like one nation and clive palmer.
Oh the chicago school you say, as in the people who were happy to slash and burn south american economies just to see what human rights abuses they could get away with in the pursuit of cheaper labour?
Why wouldn't you hear them out on this labour issue?
Is there an alternative? I just started using it but the experience is incredibly grating, especially the way they gate your progress behind "lives" that stop you learning unless you can pay.
GIMP has been the photoshop alternative for many years now. It stands for gnu image manipulation program, and it is an image editor. The category is named a bit weird but the program listed is the right one.
And splitting hairs over what exactly constitutes a genocide, conveniently ignoring the fact that the US wanted cultural genocide excluded from the UN definition for propaganda purposes.
I guess they're fine with US propaganda as long as it aligns with their chosen capitalist state's interests.
You said "far more likely" and it turns out you don't have the numbers and you were just making that up? Wow, I never could've predicted that.
I live in a country where our ISPs are required by law to keep a record of our internet metadata. When VPNs have been subpoenaed in the past ths answer has often been "we don't keep that data".
So in that case we're looking at a likelihood of 1 vs less than 1. So you're wrong there.
Plus, I would love to hear your source on these probabilities you proclaim. Can you share how you know this?
You said "far more likely", so one assumes you have the numbers.
Yeah, this is just the thin end of the wedge.
Although I suppose you could call windows itself the thin end of the wedge, this is a slightly wider part.
And anytime I see anyone advocating this crap it's always because it gets the job done "faster", and like, the rule is: "fast; cheap; good; pick two", and this doesn't break that rule.
Yeah, they get it done super fast, and super shitty. I'm yet to see anyone explain how an LLM gets the job done better, not even the most rabid apologists.
LLMs have zero fidelity, and information without fidelity is just noise. It is not good at doing information work. In fact, I don't see how you get information with fidelity without a person in the loop, like on a fundamental, philosophical level I don't think it's possible. Fidelity requires truth, which requires meaning, and I don't think you get a machine that understands meaning without AGI.