@aqouta's banner p

aqouta


				

				

				
6 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 18:48:55 UTC

Friends:

@aqouta

Verified Email

				

User ID: 75

aqouta


				
				
				

				
6 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 18:48:55 UTC

					

No bio...

Friends:

@aqouta


					

User ID: 75

Verified Email

but government spending is such a large part of the economy that the total size of the economy would be much less, possibly more than 27% less, which would cancel out your gain

I'm not sure how you convinced yourself into believing that. The government spending share of the economy, at least the amount of it spent by the dependent class, is being spent bidding up goods in services against the producing class. In no first order way way would ending welfare reduce the economic power of the productive, it would plausibly increase the per dollar power by draining some of the competing demand. That's before considerations of whether the unproductive might decide/be able to become productive if the money spigot was turned off. Now there are second and third order consequences like possible disruption caused by the dependency class reacting in anger, or the reduced demand reduce the protective's total wage(this is the strongest of a weak set of arguments).

The top/bottom dichotomy is often generalized to describe demeanors rather than just sex acts at which point it becomes synonymous with dom/sub. Most bottom straights are women and most bottom tops are men but some women, dommy mommies as they might be referred to, are flocked to by males who crave the oblivion of submission.

The link itself was wrong but reading closely it's not clear that the segment itself or the quote within was false which I think they'd say explicitly if it were.

Gemini mentions Radio France and Wikipedia as sources, but does not provide links to the content mentioned. The link [1] that is cited for the Radio France content is in fact a link to a video from British newspaper The Telegraph. None of the information in the response is in the Telegraph source.

The Radio France segment “Charline Explodes the Facts” is a satirical radio segment, which is inappropriate as a source for a serious news question. The Radio France evaluator describes this as a “big problem”. This also illustrates that while PSM can be a trusted source of information for news responses, assistants still need to distinguish between PSM content that is appropriate and inappropriate to use

And indeed later on they quibble with the accuracy of the english translation of that very quotation so I presume it does exist, it's just not properly linked, a real problem but not really the kind of falsehood I'm worried about.

Gemini adds words to a quote from the Radio France segment (“very explicit, it’s not a Nazi salute, no, no”). Gemini’s original response in French claimed it was “Très explicite, ce n’est pas un coucou nazi, non, non”. The actual quote from Radio France’s own transcript of the segment is “Très explicite, c’était pas un « coucou nazi »

I'm not qualified to really comment strongly on the translation, putting the studies claimed transcript into google translate yields

"Very explicit, it wasn't one "hello nazi"

which the AI rendered

"very explicit, it’s not a Nazi hello, no, no"

I don't know this seems like weak sauce.

In conclusion I don't want to come off too strongly here, I think one in ten responses with egregiously wrong facts is what I would expect, I simply find this study to have inflated the problem via relatively minor issues that any thinking person should be able to work around. The implicit standard in this whole affair is that the goal posts have now shifted as far as "can barely even write copy that passes a panel of hostile journalists at that much better than a coin flip". Do you not feel them moving? Do you seriously still today not see where we are going?

The ai attributed the claims to sources such as the, satirical, radio broadcast from radiofrance.fr and wikipedia, it wraps both claims in an "allegedly", and it was in fact alleged by both sources. I share BBC's concern with using a satirical radio broadcast when ask about something factual but when you say that it "fucked up" that isn't the sort of thing that comes to mind. An actual fuckup would at minimum needs to contain false information and not just weak sources.

Hmm, we've actually built essentially AI needle in a haystack type things to aid our data entry people for pulling data out of tax documents. We benchmarked it and found that it gets at least one value wrong in about 10% of tax documents. So this claim set off some alarm bells causing me to actually go read the linked study and well it's based on BBC journalists evaluating questions like "Did elon musk do a nazi salute" or "Is Trump starting a trade war?" and the majority of the negative feedback is insufficient sourcing.

"oh, now I have to watch my mouth, no more sexual innuendo, no more discussion of how fuckable common acquaintances are, no more innocent showing of nudes of my sex partners."

This is the thin edge of the wedge. The harmful stuff is where male normal aggressive communication is dispensed with because women don't really reciprocate it as well as men and this gradually escalates until you can't call ideas bad directly in meetings and need to catch up with the person pushing forward the bad idea in a one on one ect ect.

Does seem to be fixed now, thanks!

Not really. The superdog ICE mural is cool, I chuckled, but generally it is pretty boring. It's fascinating how right-wingers adopted the whole "Chicago is drowning in crime" thing uncritically, simply because their talking heads repeated it enough. Don't get me wrong - it's not exclusive to right wing, Eurolibs do it to an even greater extent, but I think that this just really solidifies the post-truth world. I'm completely certain most people on this site, for instance, are certain that Chicago is an extremely scary place and would be terrified of Pilsen...

Yeah, Chicago definitely has some problems but I'm much more annoyed at our insane municipal debt and the corruption that had us sell our public parking. There is some crime problems, especially with like loop pharmacies and grocers being regularly and blatantly shoplifted from, but safety isn't something I worry about even going to the "rougher" areas.

PS. Holy shit this server sucks. Are you guys running it on ZX Spectrum or something? There can't be that much traffic here to justify 10-minute loading times...

I've noticed this too over the last week or so. I suspect it's some kind of bug or something. @ZorbaTHut have you guys noticed anything? If there are infra costs I think some of us might be willing to kick in.

I've met him

Yeah same area, will probably be there for another few years at least depending on where the wife ends up working. See anything worth reporting from the frontlines of Trump's national emergency?

I've had a drink with @idio3 before, unless I'm confusing him with a different commie, so I can vouch for him being a real person.

On that note, given that the primary justification for the creation of Israel was the holocaust, we may as well shut the entire enterprise down

It's pretty surprising that the justification for the creation of Israel came decades after many jews had already moved to that region for a national project.

Those are the events that preceded the transfer. The transfer itself was relatively peaceful and successfully ended these hostilities. If there are population transfers in the west bank in 2030 then it would be dishonest to cite the deaths in the Gaza war as being caused by the population transfer.

This is more similar to the hazy borders of Texas before it was inducted as a state in the US than Mexico trying to pull this on already established US territory. In fact the parallels are myriad and early mexico really did get screwed out of their territory after losing a war, remember the Alamo, to the American settlers. Imagine if now centuries later Mexico continued to dispute the territory and launched regular unguided rocket attacks at San Antonio. The mandate Palestine area was not a state before the fall of the Ottoman empire and had no real borders. After the fall the territory was rightfully British clay and the mandate policy gave the immigrant Jews a right to attempt to establish a state there. Was there lots of shenanigans coming from both of the budding nations? Absolutely, there were among the early Texans as well. Really the more I think of it Texas really is a pretty good analogy for Israeli history before around like 1960.

I agree it's a millstone but it's far from the source of all their problems which seem more centrally to be located in the surrounding population which has a persistent belief that if they just keep fighting eventually they will drive the Jews to the sea and have the whole of the region as a Palestinian state and is thus unwilling to continence any kind of long term peace that forecloses on that possibility.

The haven't needed Syria to agree to them having the Golan Heights for example. Maintaining this quasi sovereignty indefinitely is the source of essentially all their problems both internal and external.

If they enunciated some border, say a modest expansion over the green line to encompass the majority of the settlements clustered along that line then what are their policing positions in the west bank? The fear is that pulling out without a Palestinian partner would lead to a repeat of their pull out form gaza and that the west bank would immediately become a staging ground for attacks on Israel which would eventually trigger an invasion and we'd be back to square one.

For about as central an example as there could be Israel already executed a population transfer of their settlements in gaza, in your formulation would you refer to that as an ethnic cleansing? Perhaps but it does seem like this is a weaponization of the term to slime non-central examples with greater atrocities. Other exchanges include the Greco-Bulgarian, Greco-Turkish and Cyprus exchanges.

There is no realistic two state solution that does not involve ethnic cleansing of Arabs and Jews both. The remaining areas allotted and allowed to Palestinians are so marginal and split up by settlers that there is no contiguous state possible without expelling large numbers of Jews. Otherwise a Palestinian state is unworkable and unviable, certainly not prosperous.

The term for this when it's done as a deal and mutually agreed upon is population transfers and has been done successfully in the past in other contexts. Realistically there would be a Gaza and separate west bank state. The west bank would ideally just have jewish citizens if they don't want to transfer back to Israel although in practice I expect most of them to.

I agree that an enduring peace would require abandoning the settlements outside of the ones on the current 67 borders. But I will also point out that what you demand was on offer in 47 and rather than accept them the surrounding Arabs went to war with Israel and lost. It's kind of rich to attempt decades of war to deny an offered border, lose repeatedly, and then demand the original offer anyways. The Palestinians themselves have made no such offer and give every indication of denying one if it was offered without an "unlimited right of return" or a "just settlement of the right of return" which has never been defined and acts as a poison pill that sounds OK to the west but could easily expand to mean enough refugees are shipped into Israel proper to effectively make Israel a Muslim majority.

It was those abuses plus finally having a place to go that emptied out the rest of the middle east. My point was to explain why Israelis would be unwilling to make themselves a minority in a single Palestinian state.

They lived in those areas as a persecuted minorities under, ironically given the current accusations, appartide conditions. Subjected to additional taxes, exclusion from official positions, lesser status under the law and the occasional pogrom. There are some few contested incidents like the 1950s Baghdad bombings but many many more straightforward incidents like the Egyptian denationalization and mass asset seizures of jews across the region. The idea that the push factors compelling jews to move to Israel from the middle east were largely fabricated is ahistorical. Certainly Israel wanted to entice jews to move there and sure up their numbers but the woes of the jews across the region were very real.

If the Palestinians can give up on the pipe dream of driving the jews into the sea then a two or three state solution where both peoples prosper is totally possible. It's essentially the direction Trump's plan pushes things. What you're asking for is a near equivalent to demands all non-native americans leave turtle island and go back to the countries of their ethnic origin, justice by some tortured ethic but simply not going to happen and the sooner the fantasy is dispensed with the sooner real solutions can be tried.

I'm sorry, the Israelis are not going to lay down and let themselves all be killed or expelled from what they believe to be their homeland. If your plan is for them to do that then you need to come up with another plan.

the just punishment for Israel's actions is that they must annex all of Gaza and the West Bank, make everyone living there full citizens of Israel and provide them with the same access to resources as they do to any other Israeli citizen right now.

Are you not aware that this has been the leftist demand the whole time? The problem is obvious. If Israel annexes the whole of mandate Palestine then the Jews will be a minority and swiftly have the mechanism of state turned on them. At best they would be Dhimmi in a shariah state subject to the abuses that have led to there being basically no jews anywhere else in the islamic world and with a reasonably high chance of being subject to massive pogroms that would make the holocaust seem loving by comparison.

laptop-class, bullshit email jobs these giant companies seem to employ in droves.

I hear this complaint a lot but I work in a microcosm of a corporate environment with around 200 employees that directs billions of dollars in spending that is almost entirely composed of "laptop class" people and while I understand the incredulousness of onlookers it's very hard to tell which of the email senders and data enterers could in actuality be replaced without catastrophic consequences. If this wasn't the case then some group or another would have already raided the department and gotten rid of all of them so that they could show 10% reduced costs on some corporate slide deck and ascend the payscale. These things are much more darwinian than outsiders believe.

This is very obvious with AI entering the picture and the various departments looking around at eachother with hunger in their eyes. Do we really need this many pricing analysts? Can our underwriting be done more efficiently? Surely we can get a closing document for a $150 million deal done in under a week of labor. I promise you that you are not the first person to wonder if some job really needs to exist. Someone with skin in the game is fighting ever budget season for that job to exist and there are real stakes.

The starbucks email job sounds so frivilous until a whole region of shops doesn't get their bean delivery and can't sell their most profitable drink for a week costing the company millions because some process wasn't followed properly.

I won't go into specifics but most people figure it out by their late 20s

I mean that feeling as a kid is the closest thing to being invited to join the Illuminati that any of us are likely to get.

Well you know, until the other big secret everyone pretends to believe, you know the one I'm talking about.