domain:jessesingal.substack.com
hydroacetylene
12hr ago
It is a very working class usage. I'm definitely willing to believe that it's a regionalism, but it seems like I've heard it used by Australians or English or something- maybe it's something that convergently evolves in regional dialects as a lower class colloquialism.
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
12hr ago
Wait forget everything else: do those casualty numbers in Ukraine have any credibility or is this a map sharpie moment?
Rov_Scam
12hr ago
You need a carry permit to transport a gun in a car, at least in most places I'm aware of, unless the gun is unloaded and cases in the trunk or some other inaccessible area.
hydroacetylene
12hr ago
the only state that is plausibly a nation is Texas
Alaska.
philosoraptor
12hr ago
I occasionally see "meat" and "poultry" treated as separate categories, but mostly in older sources and even they seem to tacitly concede the two are closely related. I've never knowingly met anyone in person who thought it was an important distinction. This is the first I've ever heard of pork products not counting as "meat", though. Where do you see this usage?
hydroacetylene
12hr ago
An extremely high one- do you know anything about pigs? A friend of mine raises them at home and feeds the heads to his other pigs when he slaughters them. Feral hogs happily eat dead piglets.
They're nasty, vicious animals.
WandererintheWilderness
12hr ago
And do you want to live in Gaza? "Guns would allow us to overthrow a tyrannical government and restore a real democracy with first-world living standards once the unrest is over" is a decent pitch. "Guns would allow us to survive indefinitely outside the tyrant's control as starving guerillas in a bombed-out wasteland", not so much.
please be specific, which part?
I am not going to bother checking whether it confirms your claim because for example
DeepSeek-V2 Chat (RL) outperform GPT-4-0613 and ERNIEBot 4.0, solidifying the position of our models in the top-tier LLMs that support Chinese
indicates that they use "LLM" for DeepSeek-V2 and GPT-4 in general going against your
Now if what I am describing does not sound like an LLM to you, that is likely because most publicly available "LLMs" are not just an LLM. They are an LLM plus an additional interface layer that sits between the user and the actual language model. An LLM on its own is little more than a tool that turns words into math, but you can combine it with a second algorithm to do things like take in a block of text and do some distribution analysis to compute the most probable next word. This is essentially what is happening under the hood when you type a prompt into GPT or your assistant of choice.
claim
the unusual thing about the US is that there isn't a set of subordinate ethnic-national identities that the civic identity is built on top of
Not really. Well, this is historically wrong... obviously in the present day this is pretty clearly correct. Besides Texas of course, and for a while Utah to some degree (and maybe also Vermont? It never joined the Articles of Confederation and took a few years to join the United States too, although a lot of this was New York's stubbornness denying them. I don't think my native Oregon Territory makes the cut though), you only have to look at the Civil War and the decisions made by many individuals there to discover that some people did in fact consider other identities as not even necessarily subordinate but even superceding that of full nationality. Robert E Lee as a classic example notably considered allegiance to Virginia as supreme to that of America. However, it's worth noting that this really only applied to the original 13 colonies and weakened substantially over time. And of course every war in particular was a major impetus towards nationalism.
Still, I get what you're saying. There was a sort of "purpose" and consciousness behind the creation of the US that many other [Western] nations lack, at least so quickly. It's nonetheless difficult to say what exactly generalizes and what does not, because historians well know that nationalization somewhat paralleled technologies that facilitated internal movement (e.g. the railroad), internal mixing (e.g. educational and literacy trends), and led to increasing national mobilization in the military realm (post-Napoleonic warfare). The US is also a bit of an aberration in the sense that it has limited history (in a Eurocentric sense, and thus fewer pre-existing loyalties) so it's not an easily extensible template.
the_Culture_is_great
12hr ago
I just think calling him neurotic, and referencing the cliff and chainsaw bit specifically was uncharitable. It was a perfectly good analogy about how he personally perceives the threat of guns, even if he knows nothing isikely to go wrong.
It's definitely different than a hat. If for some reason you get in a heated argument, a guy with a hat can't kill you with a twitch of his finger like a guy with a gun can.
TheLoser
13hr ago
And I'm saying that someone who is violent and drugged up is significantly more lethal with a gun than without one. Are you seriously suggesting that an armed insane person is not signficantly more dangerous than an unarmed insane person?
I have a bad habit of picking examples that muddy my point. Sub out our druggy gangster and replace him with an average Joe who just had a bad week - found out a parent was diagnosed with cancer, lost big on his sports bets, got laid off, car damaged in a hit and run, etc.
I don't want to draw a firm line between stable people and unstable people. Certainly unstable people exist, but normal people can be pushed into instability, and it doesn't take much sometimes. Worse, they can just make innocent mistakes that still end with someone dead. Argument gets heated, someone shoves someone else, someone fears for their life...
ChickenOverlord
13hr ago
More broadly, I think that the idea to use guns to keep the government in check was fine in 1800 but today is just laughable.
You're making me break out the old /k/ copypasta (how do I make the quote one continuous block I don't know how to internet):
Listen, you fantastically retarded motherfucker. I'm going to try and explain this so you can understand it.
You cannot control an entire country and its people with tanks, jets, battleships and drones or any of these things that you so stupidly believe trumps citizen ownership of firearms.
A fighter jet, tank, drone, battleship or whatever cannot stand on street corners. And enforce "no assembly" edicts. A fighter jet cannot kick down your door at 3AM and search your house for contraband.
None of these things can maintain the needed police state to completely subjugate and enslave the people of a nation. Those weapons are for decimating, flattening and glassing large areas and many people at once and fighting other state militaries. The government does not want to kill all of its people and blow up its own infrastructure. These are the very things they need to be tyrannical assholes in the first place. If they decided to turn everything outside of Washington D.C. into glowing green glass they would be the absolute rulers of a big, worthless, radioactive pile of shit.
Police are needed to maintain a police state, boots on the ground. And no matter how many police you have on the ground they will always be vastly outnumbered by civilians which is why in a police state it is vital that your police have automatic weapons while the people have nothing but their limp dicks.
BUT when every random pedestrian could have a Glock in their waistband and every random homeowner an AR-15 all of that goes out the fucking window because now the police are out numbered and face the reality of bullets coming back at them.
If you want living examples of this look at every insurgency the the U.S. military has tried to destroy. They're all still kicking with nothing but AK-47s, pick up trucks and improvised explosives because these big scary military monsters you keep alluding to are all but fucking useless for dealing with them.
Dumb. Fuck.
hydroacetylene
13hr ago
You should pay attention while using a chainsaw. You should not be extra wary when your neighbor is cutting up a fallen tree branch in his front yard while you're on the porch. Likewise if you're changing your tire on the shoulder, you should exercise extra attention- but if you're in a parking lot off the feeder road, wincing every time a car comes down the highway is uncalled for.
It's quite reasonable to pay extra attention to a gun you're using at the range, or in the hunting field. On the hip of the guy in line in front of you at the coffee shop? Doesn't affect you anymore than him wearing a hat(or not).
hydroacetylene
13hr ago
You can be pretty sure that a legal concealed carrier is not a violent drugged up gangster. There are actual studies on CHL holders; even those conducted with hostility to the policy of legal concealed carry tend to find that license holders are model citizens.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
13hr ago
I honestly can't tell if you're taking the piss here, but somehow this comment makes me think of David Brin's Uplift series.
Pongalh
13hr ago
I am come from an upper-class family, I went to the appropriate schools in the UK, I read the Soectator, etc. You could pretty easily predict my views on the merits of taxation and on the usefulness of the Laffer curve, my voting affiliation, my views on fox-hunting, on globalisation, all from those pieces of information.
Sure, you could, but it's not causal. But do you believe the veracity of what you think about the effects of taxation is really no more accurate than what a poor person thinks? It's all just situated selves determining so-called truth? Or are the effects real independent of you coming from an upper-class background?
Pongalh
13hr ago
People significantly choose what side they're on by considering the effects of what they believe to be facts beyond subjective self-interest or family ties. They demonstrably spend time researching "the facts" and the "science."
Even this notion of tribal loyalties determining political outcomes is supposedly a disinterested value-free view from above, about human behavior.
hydroacetylene
13hr ago
I've often seen similar arguments. It, i think, often stems from an ignorance of what actually the gun laws are. In most places in America, it is much more difficult to obtain the licenses to take a gun to the store or post office than it is to get one to drive there.
?? I have both, that is not so(and btw carrying a gun in the post office is illegal everywhere in America unless you happen to be an on-duty police officer). There might be places in the US where it is more difficult to get a CHL than a drivers license but it's not 'most' places in America.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
13hr ago
A background check is simply a method (and the only real one?) so as to enforce an already existing, reasonable, and constitutional limit on felons or other prohibited persons owning guns.
No, it is not. It is prior restraint. It is as reasonable as having the government vet political speeches beforehand to ensure they contain no calls for imminent lawless action.
wayfarer
13hr ago
I think the latter are usually packing (and packing military equipment).
by that definition nearly no terrorist attacks in Europe were done by terrorists
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
13hr ago
At least in the case of terrorists specifically, they are demonstrably vulnerable to copycat contagions, and stabbings are the current contagion in Europe. So that particular point I would observe is a little bit faulty.
magicalkittycat
13hr ago
Is this actually true?
Well
-
From a common sense view, straw purchasing and theft of legal guns can't really happen if purchasing and legal guns don't exist.
-
No way to prevent this says only nation where this regularly happens is a joke for a reason. Most other first world nations don't seem to have nearly as much gun violence, and they also have more restrictive laws.
Maybe it's worth the freedom (I think it is for most responsible gun owners) but it certainly seems true that less guns in general helps lead to less guns for criminals. Although as 3D printed firearms and the like become easier to do, we might see this equalizing as criminals might not have to steal to begin with.
Hieronymus
13hr ago
Inner city crime ridden areas. Not sure what to do when you have too high of a prevalence of violent people. I am willing to say that civilization has broken down in those areas, and then reiterate that gun rights are civilizational rights. If you don't have civilization, you can't have that right.
Since I haven’t seen any comments on this, I want note how far it goes. It is a fully general argument against liberal democracy in those places. You may or may not be willing to see Los Angeles as a colony ruled by an appointed, authoritarian governor, but the principle points there.
Violent people don't always stay violent people. Testosterone is a hell of a drug, so young men are often more violent than older men. Not sure if ex-convicts should be allowed to have guns, but maybe if you don't trust them to own a gun you shouldn't trust them to be out of prison.
I am extremely sympathetic here. Reintegration of former prisoners into society should involve the restoration of as many rights as possible as soon as possible, rather than keeping them second- or third-class citizens forever. I am ignorant of a lot of details, so I wouldn’t want to present an uncompromising principle. My casual take is that if you trust him to vote, you should trust him to have guns, and if you don’t trust him to have guns, you shouldn’t trust him to vote.
The common thread is one of respect and trust. Gun control is intended to be, in a very literal sense, disempowering: If you are armed you have the power to do these things; we do not trust you with that power, and so we will disarm you. I think that living in a bureaucratic society has desensitized us to this, because respect is inefficient and illegible to the bureaucracy.
I'm not sure AI or LLMs are the issue here - shaming or building consensus is against the rules here, but I have to admit I was tempted to just reply to the top-level comment with, "Dude, you read too much porn."
The point is that I think this isn't a technological issue so much as a social issue. People can produce pornographic fiction and will seek out or buy pornographic fiction for all the usual reasons. The social regulation of that desire is just as important if not more so than the technological regulation thereof.
More options
Context Copy link