mfed1122

This will also be quite the test for the Lemmy slopwarriors

"influence customers to increase their adoption of digital self-solve" Corporate speakers should be paddled

Oh my god when will you people shut the fuck up about this

So jokes aside, why is it titled this way? Or is the title actually a joke? Edit: https://artincontext.org/the-cursed-woman-painting-by-tassaert/ Meh, looks like he's probably just using it as a synonym for damned, so just classic boring religious condemnation of horny. Though in fairness he may just be using it descriptively and playfully the way we now use "naughty" I guess?

I take responsibility but still think it was the correct choice not to vote for Kamala. This is because from my perspective the Democratic party relied on its voters usung harm reduction strategies in order to run candidates that don't make anything better for regular people in the long run, other than some tiny little concessions as tribute. Don't think there can't be worse presidents than Trump. Don't think it can't get worse here. Back when Bush was elected people thought he was the pinnacle too. And before that people thought that about Reagan. But people like *YOU* kept voting for the lesser evil, and the Democrats, who are on the side of billionaires just like every other politician, didn't really make things better, kept cooperating with Republicans, and together they laid the groundwork that allowed Trump to be elected. If that pattern keeps up, one day (soon) we will have something worse than Trump. I understand the current situation is worse than the situation would be if Kamala had won, but we have to draw the line before it gets even worse. The way it's been going, the country was on an oscillating trajectory with a downward trend. Its shortsighted to only consider 4 years ahead. You're thinking about yourself for the next couple years, I'm thinking about all the future generations after us for decades. Anyways, I took responsibility, so please do your part and downvote Kamalaposts now

Hmm yes I think a lot of this exists but isn't being called by this term. It's a good term. It kinda means what cyberpunk originally meant before it got hollowed out and turned into primarily an aesthetic term.

"Learned", lol, yeah that's what the problem is. They're just so stupid. So *unbelievably* stupid. These people with billions of dollars of think tank research and social data, these people who climbed into power, they just aren't realizing this obvious fact that somehow every non-politician around me has understood since they were 15 years old. They haven't "learned".

If I'm not mistaken they are both dead. One by OD and be got hit by a car 😃😃😃

So just to be clear, I don't hate you or anything, we're trying to achieve basically the same goal, we want the same thing. Our disagreement is just about what actions will most effectively bring it about. That's much better than the people who fundamentally want something different, so I want to be clear that I don't wish to characterize you as "essentially identical" to those actual enemy groups. Anyways, from my understanding of the world, you voting for Kamala also disregards the effect on marginalized communities, its just marginalized communities of 2030-2080 and possibly onwards, rather than the communities of 2025-2030 which you are more directly affected by. That's the way I see it, at least. Its funny because really both the people who voted for Kamala and the people who don't are thinking to themselves: "this isn't how I really want things to go, but its a noble sacrifice to make for the greater good". I think the disagreement between the two groups truly comes down to complexities of which method will actually end up bringing about change. I leaned towards the choice I took, because when I look at the political history of this country since the 80s, it seems as though the Democrats have gone soft as representatives, which created that famous political ratchet effect. I'm sorry, and I know this sounds like me just being lazy, but I truly do not believe putting in the leg work to change the party this way will matter. I know people who burnt literal years doing grassroots campaigning for truly progressive candidates and it went nowhere. I've been to more than a few of those types of events where everyone is trying to change the system the way it's supposed to be changed. But you know why those people never went any further? Because the party didn't need them to, because the party can get the votes they need AND have their donor cake too, because even *many of the people in these grassroots campaigns* will fall in line to vote for the normie candidate when the time comes and the Democrats know that. They know it because of the millions of dollars they spend to verify and ensure it for themselves. So to me, since the "lift up opposing candidates" thing has been failing for 50 years, and the "blue no matter who" thing has been making things worse for 50 years, the only thing left to try is not voting. That's the one thing that might actually hit Democratic politicians where it hurts (their power/money). I know its not your strategy and you have every right to keep trying yours too, even though I think your strategy is part of the problem and you think the same about mine. I think the only way to come to a consensus is to debate why we expect one strategy to work better, and so far I feel like recent political history is clearly on my side. But I am interested in hearing counterarguments. But everyone should understand that continually posting this Kamala shame stuff just makes people like me drastically less willing to hear those counterarguments, because it demonstrates how the people making them haven't even bothered to properly understand the nuance of our voting reasons, and instead prefer to strawman us as dumbly caring only about Middle Eastern genocides above all else.

Try addressing the reasoning that I explicitly laid out rather than restating your own reasoning that we started off with. That's how conversation works. I have no problem having a rational back and forth discussion, but if you won't even respond to my actual reasoning there's no point to it. I don't want to antagonize someone who is ultimately on my side, but you sure make it hard to resist by being so inflammatory. I understand you're upset and think I did a horrible thing, but I also think the same thing about you, yet I am not holding it so harshly against you because I understand your heart was in the right place. If someone keeps being so aggressive to me, I'm only human, and its hard for me to keep a level head. But I want to keep a level head and have a reasonable discussion. I can tell you that I'm open to having my mind changed, although perhaps you may not believe that. But if you want to actually change someone's mind, I'm right here and ready to talk about it. But I ask that you at least respond to the reasoning I laid out, not just my claim but my reasoning for it, and to try to be respectful. I get that it's not always possible, I mess up too (I've done it in this same thread), but let's just try to assume the best of each other and be open to being wrong (me too) and maybe we could actually come away from this with at least one changed mind. Edit: I'll happily try to elaborate in response to your other comments if you want, but it seems like you would rather I just shut up, so its up to you. I don't wanna waste time typing out an argument that you aren't interested in having

Its just confusing because I'm told I should have voted for Kamala because:

1. I need to think about more people than myself
2. Sometimes we need to pick a lesser evil for the practical benefit of more people
3. I need to make personal and ideological sacrifices for the greater good
4. I need to accept that hard choices have to be made and be willing to take real action even if it inconveniences me
5. I can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good

But from my perspective, that's exactly what I AM doing, in fact to an even greater extent, by not voting for Kamala. And when I bring this up, suddenly your rebuttal is that actually I should be picking.... What's best for me personally in the next couple of years?

I knew Trump winning would mean disaster for me, my family, my friends. But I felt like Kamala winning would just buy us a few more years of relative peace (at the continued expense of exploiting much of the rest of the world), only to then land us with the same ultimatum ,but with higher stakes, four years later. So I:

1. Thought about more people than myself, my friends, my family. I also thought about their kids, and people all over the world, and about millions of people who haven't even been born yet but one day will grow up under the same horrible America that we'll still have even if progressives manage to undo the last 20 years of crazy.
2. Picked a lesser evil (Trump now) over a greater evil (another century of stable American evil at home and abroad) for the practical benefit of more people (future people and young people)
3. Made personal sacrifices (I need to plan to leave the country) and ideological sacrifices (I don't like picking lesser evils! I wish I could only ever pick good things!)
4. Accepted hard choices (not voting for Kamala) and was willing to take real action (selling all my stuff, boycotting corporations, giving up a hundred comforts, and preparing to leave the country)
5. Didn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good: Of course not voting for Kamala would ideally not be so catastrophic. Ideally vote boycotting would have started decades ago. But oh well, we can't have things be perfect, so I guess starting the change now, messy and painful as it is for me today, will be good for future generations after me

Hah, whoops, I edited this in before I saw your response! Same research!

It was, you're welcome. Now go be selfish somewhere else Edit: (If its not obvious, I don't mean this, but figured I'd show you what its like for someone to disregard 90% of your post and call you selfish when you explicitly made an argument for why you're not) You can insult me all you want, but I listed out plenty of reasons for why *you're* the one sacrificing others in order to sit on your high horse of having voted for Kamala. But you fall back to insults because you can't actually address my points. You are selfishly choosing the well-being of your immediate social group over millions of people in the present and future.

I am beginning to suspect that 90% of programming memes are made by beginners and 90% of the engagement with them is also from beginners. Maybe I'm just projecting. I remember seeing this stuff when I was starting and just assuming that must be how it is.

Is there any type of post that *doesn't* belong in a shitposting community? Because I know some people have very strong opinions about what shitposting is around here. And personally, I don't think this fits. But maybe shitposting is meant to just be a pure miscellaneous grab bag of anything? Yes, I read the community rules which say "everything goes", but the reality of what is posted seems to suggest a different spirit of the law.

It's alarmist to say that a jury decided using Signal is evidence of terrorism

I refused to vote because I believed it would maximize the well-being of good people over the foreseeable future. My intent was good. You can call me completely stupid if you want, but its totally irrational to call me an asshole. I purposely *intended* to give up my own well-being for the greater good. That's not asshole behavior, I would think. Again, feel free to say that I am stupid and had the wrong plan for the greater good. That's a good debatable stance. But claiming I'm an asshole only demonstrates that you can't see my argument as it is, but only as you want to see it

Thad

Its tricky because I don't dislike this post, but I do feel like posts should be in the appropriate comms. And I'm just legitimately unclear on what belongs here. I guess the idea is just whatever people post?

Me realizing with horror that "burned down" and "burned up" are often completely interchangeable

While I think it's shitty that they did this, part of me also kind of likes it. The most resilient form of web behavior includes bookmarking sites and discovering new sites by them linking to each other, and also via conversation with others online, rather than getting all your sites from a search engine. I get that search engines are useful for lots of things. But maybe this will help kick people's search engine addiction if they realize there's lots of good stuff out there that you can't trust a search engine to surface.

Yeah the posting of it on Lemmy is def a 3. Whoever created the original post though.. Ehhh. We dunno where the og meme came from. I doubt it was made by a lemming

Idk a lot of people are very attached to their AI boyfriends and girlfriends so I think there's definitely a large market for this

Vintage dank maymay

The jury didn't say using Signal was evidence of terrorist activity, though. That's why it's alarmist to say the jury said that - because they didn't. At least, not to my knowledge?

Yeah but he implied something not completely negative about AI so I'm pretty sure he's actually an evil moron who knows nothing, which I can say due to my vast credentials as a Lemmy user of many years

Ooooh can we pay my washed up friend $3,000,000 to give a speech there?

Doesn't this leave out the more likely possibility of just continuing to not having any experience?

Conspiracy brain thinks of a few reasons:

1. To preemptively establish what "real crazy" looks like so that we tolerate what he's actually saying and doing more

2. To muddy the lines between fake and real so that everyone is too confused to fact check anything

3. Garden variety people being stupid and wanting to exaggerate something because exaggeration=funny, and they're not aware of the harm this does

4. To bait the left into accepting the same sort of "the fact that this is believable (to me) PROVES that this is valid possibility and worldview" mentality that the right adopted a decade ago, which ultimately makes people much easier to manipulate

5. To position the left as yet another entity that promotes its views via misleading "jokes" that on the one hand legitimately misinform people, but when called out can be defended as "just a joke that you were too stupid to recognize" - that is, borrowing another successful but evil strategy that the right has recently made use of

You've gotta understand how for the many people who already saw that post, for you to say that this one "is real", which could be interpreted as an escalating followup post, is extremely misleading to the point of dishonest. You can't just be like "yeah bro this post is real" and then point to a literally different post which is substantially less alarming.

Yes I do think something like this would be nice. We don't need one giga search engine with a huge index of everything. Specialized search engines with genre specific indices would be more individually maintainable, and diverse

Bro but its crazy to just pick the animal you specifically have a connection to and say "there's more to the story... But not any more to it than that!". What if I had grown up watching that heron? What if I have twice as many kids as you and they all love the heron? Does that tip the scale so that now we should be angry at the fish for trying to kill my heron by starvation? Little fish bastards, why can't they just my heron be? Of course the real truth is that nature is at odds with itself and there's no way around that. If you can say "yeah I just like the fish cos that's what I like, I don't care that it doesn't make sense", then that's respectable enough. You're just out for your own well-being, just like the fish and the heron both. But getting so heated at the heron for trying to be alive, which is also what your fish try to do, and then extending your hatred to all heronkind is just hilarious

Let me first clarify that I think you seem very nice and I'm not mad at you, nor do I have any intent to make you feel bad. I think you're misreading my tone, tbh. That or I'm expressing my tone poorly. So, I thought I did correct you politely, within the bounds of also needing to make very clear and unambiguous that you needed to adjust your confidence when talking about this subject. I have no issue with someone idly brainstorming ideas, but in the context of your original comment "There are so many ways to do human verification that have worked for years.", which you didn't qualify in any way, you sounded completely authoritative and sure of yourself. Since you yourself even know that you are ignorant on this topic, to me a better phrasing would be to preface that with something like "I think..." Or "It seems like...", or even outright saying "I don't really know about this stuff, but..." Etc.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be a dick, just being honest. I felt it was important to correct your unjustified confidence in the original comment where you claimed many such solutions exist

Sorry dude, but this comment makes it clear you have no idea what you're talking about. If I'm given an assignment to write a program that generates a huge variety of novel cat drawings, which won't register the same in this database, I bet I could personally single handedly have that done in a week of work.

Some other problems :

1. Many real humans will draw roughly similar cats. Unless you compare the drawings pixel by pixel, or very precisely, then there will be lots of false positives.

2. If you then decide to compare the drawings pixel by pixel or very precisely, then I can trivially generate new drawings by altering them. I have plenty of time to reverse engineer how your database is comparing things even though you don't tell me when I get a strike because I can make lots of fake accounts via hiding my IP address and run experiments by feeding different variations of drawings and seeing which ones eventually get banned.

3. If you ask once every couple of months, then my bot gets to do three times whatever that duration of months is worth of damage and misinformation before it gets banned. That's a pretty long time, especially for a bot. I can deploy new bots much faster than your system gets rid of them.

4. As Anivia pointed out, I can pay real humans to draw the different cats for my bots when needed. This is especially trivial because I can just ask them to draw a whole bunch of cats in advance. I don't even need to wait for the cue from the system. I can just have a big library of pre-drawn cat drawings that I upload as needed.

Why yes, I have noticed the pre-election uptick of posts like this designed to prep the masses to slavishly vote for whatever do-nothing Biden/Kamala/Hillary joke candidate the establishment will be choosing for us next time. If Kamala won we’d all be having brunch right now, right?

And all the people who never could still wouldn’t have. Yay status quo! (Especially when I’m the one well off in that status quo 🤓)

If the vileness of AI actually unites the masses, it may all be worth it

It’s always these people with brainless, generic, middle of the road views dragging out brainless, generic, middle of the road insults. Shit like “Somewhere out there, there’s a tree that’s sole purpose is to replace the oxygen you waste. Go find it and apologize.” They need generic insults, because a custom insult would require the ability to think situationally. I do sometimes get tilted in an online debate, but with people like that all I can do is laugh. It’s like the teenager who thinks “I am what I eat” is an epic comeback to being called a pussy. Its not bro, its really not…

Meanwhile all the people in America who have suffered systematically for decades would continue to suffer systematically. No denying things would have been great under Kamala for people who were privileged all along.

Who’s got the animation of the girl purposely getting on the creme filling assembly line?

You are tripping. Old accounts mean alts, new accounts mean bots, frequent posts mean shills, infrequent posts mean alts again? No need to actually critically engage with any disagreement when every permutation of account activity can be unfalsifiably depicted as illegitimate! I never worry about someone being a bot or a shill or an alt, because if they’re making a bad argument, I can just present my reasoning against that argument, and it doesn’t matter where it came from. Your points look a lot stronger without trying to question your opponent that way. After all, if a bot posts that the sky is blue, I don’t think you’d start thinking the sky is green? So face a bad argument with a good argument, rather than a fallacy. Do your stance justice.

Wow you’re right, the MEME says they’re wrong so they must be wrong, never mind the actual reasoning they presented!

Hey, aren’t you the guy who just called me a fascist enabler for not voting Kamala? Ohhh the irony

If the people suffering systematically is a constant between the two options, then how is it relevant to the choice? This is like saying “if my infected wound is going to sting whether I leave it alone or put disinfectant on it, then how is it relevant to the choice?” The answer is that one of the choices, while still shitty and possibly even more painful, creates the possibility for a better future despite the present. Voting for the corporate neolibs IS what makes more fascist candidates viable. Not voting for them is what forces the party to offer legitimate opposition to fascism and representation of the lower class. Yes, abstaining makes things worse in the short term, in exchange for the possibility of making things better in the long term. The only reason Trump was ever a viable candidate is because of people using your reasoning being unwilling to take that short term bitter pill for the last 40 years. It seems like you’re just feeding marginalized people to fascists in exchange for getting to say you didn’t vote for the neo-lib. I love when people trot out this argument, because it’s exactly what you’re doing, on a LARGER scale and in a subtler way than you accuse me of doing. I didn’t skip voting so I could win some community respect. It’s not exactly a popular stance (unlike yours) in case you haven’t noticed. I did it despite the economic, safety, AND social consequences because I truly believe it was the only way to make the possibility of a better future.

Fair nuff, I guess you didn’t claim that was the reasoning

I love graphene, but I hope they’re planning to also roll out some very strong stock software - or else this will make for a very rough first impression on a large audience of normies and hurt graphene’s long run chance of success. The camera, gallery, and app store in particular will not come up to many users’ standards.

Voting for corporate Democrats is making room for worse fascists in the future, abstaining is forcing corporate Democrats to start representing their constituents ^ something that should have been understood decades ago, and you still don’t understand today