domain:archive.ph
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
12m ago
I actually dislike when people reflexively avoid "died" as well. I very rarely will say someone "passed away", because I think it's better to be direct about what happened. The person died, it's ok to say it.
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
16m ago
The earlier Trump resigns the better the path for Vance in 28. The stronger his case as incumbent.
TowardsPanna
18m ago
Thank you for the link. I suppose Occam's Razor here is that the controversy adds to the virality and that's that.
I never watched the video either, but I had the same reaction to the text. I don't doubt that the cops in question were horrible predators.
MathWizard
Good things are good
29m ago
We are experimenting and learning and inventing. Every modern AI is a brand new prototype, mass released to the public only because of how interesting and useful they are despite their newness.
Nearly every new invention is massively overpriced compared to its long term potential unless the "invention" is a refinement of an old invention optimized specifically for its affordability. Cars used to be crazy expensive luxury goods, now they're expensive but affordable staples of modern life, much cheaper than trying to walk across the country on the Oregon Trail. The literal first refrigerator was vastly expensive as the inventor prototyped it out without a factory to stamp them out, now everyone has one. The first GPT-4 quality LLM was vastly more expensive to design than GPT-4 quality LLMs will be 10 years from now. We have no idea where AI intelligence will plateau, and we have no idea what cost it will asymptote towards over the next few decades as people discover more and more efficient methods and technologies. Current quality is merely a lower bound, and current costs are an upper bound, not the true long term potential, and probably not anywhere close.
The answer to every (non-safety) criticism of AI is that we're not there yet. But we're getting somewhere.
This was addressed in one of the holy texts:
More important, unarmed black people are killed by police or other security officers about twice a week according to official statistics, and probably much more often than that. You’re saying none of these shootings, hundreds each year, made as good a flagship case as Michael Brown? In all this gigantic pile of bodies, you couldn’t find one of them who hadn’t just robbed a convenience store? Not a single one who didn’t have ten eyewitnesses and the forensic evidence all saying he started it? [emphasis mine—and note that this was written in 2014!]
I propose that the Michael Brown case went viral – rather than the Eric Garner case or any of the hundreds of others – because of the PETA Principle. It was controversial. A bunch of people said it was an outrage. A bunch of other people said Brown totally started it, and the officer involved was a victim of a liberal media that was hungry to paint his desperate self-defense as racist, and so the people calling it an outrage were themselves an outrage. Everyone got a great opportunity to signal allegiance to their own political tribe and discuss how the opposing political tribe were vile racists / evil race-hustlers. There was a steady stream of potentially triggering articles to share on Facebook to provoke your friends and enemies to counter-share articles that would trigger you.
TL;DR: controversial topics go more viral than benign ones.
Edit: also, to address the specific case of George Floyd, at the time, the video footage that went viral was very chilling to watch. (Or so I’ve been told by friends, conservative ones, who had watched the video; as a rule, I try to avoid viewing such things.) When one sees a man being choked to death slowly over the course of eight minutes while protesting “I can’t breathe!” then it’s hard not to viscerally feel that an injustice has been committed. (And if I remember correctly, the video went viral long before the man’s extensive prior criminal history or fentanyl usage became common knowledge.)
raakaa
55m ago
Are you confusing the real economy and market with the dating market?
I don't think this engaged with Prima's question about why women would settle for poor […] boyfriends
Evidently there is a link between the real market and the dating market.
(And if the descriptor “stupid boyfriends” means “un(der)educated boyfriends”, then “women taking out massive loans for fake degrees that don't pay” is an example of another “market distortion” identified in the original comment that affects the dating market. Now, there’s nothing inherently gendered about this strategy, so a man who is willing to sacrifice earning potential in order to meet the criterion of not being a “stupid boyfriend” can do so. But then he gives up his ability to not be a “poor boyfriend”, so he fails that criterion too.
None of this addresses the “not being a ‘smelly boyfriend’” criterion, of course.)
I wouldn't put high odds on anyone getting two chances to take out Trump. If you don't get him, there's a very good chance he's going to get you. And when you stay your hand the first time, it eats away at your support when people see you hesitate and don't know if you'll go through with it.
Coups come into this world like bastard children, half improvised and half compromised. If the deals and moves line up you can take it or you can let it go, but you probably can't time it.
More options
Context Copy link