Yes, genocides are emotional. Watching children being blown up is something that should upset you. That's actually happening in the real world.
Emotion isn't the only thing that should inform your decisions, but pretending like you shouldn't be upset at watching kids being blown up, or begging for their parents, or whatever else have you is just foolish.
Is your argument that a genuine, good faith interpretation of "Black Lives Matter" is "Only Black Lives Matter"?
This isn't how English works. If I say "I like your mom" to an SO, they wouldn't interpret it as I don't like them and instead like their mom. I don't have to say "I like your mom too".
Yeah fuck people who are against animal abuse and actually live out their principles.
Like you could at least say "preachy vegans". This is still problematic, because it ignores that everyone is preachy about issues they understand are immoral (we're all preachy anti-racists, anti-rapists, etc.)
But just saying "vegan" is wild.
I don't use tiktok, but some people have unusually based tiktok feeds. They can get direct footage from the genocide happening in Gaza, for example. I never get that recommended on YouTube, despite my very obvious socialist leanings, watching pro-Palestine content, etc.
This is the actual reason tiktok is being banned (if they don't sell) after the election. One of the largest lobbying groups in America, AIPAC, in probably the most well-funded policy categories (pro-Israel policies) backs most of Congress. They've determined tiktok has far too much influence on American youth, and has made the Israel/Palestine divide a young/old divide more-so than a left/right divide.
There's already a strong correlation between political leaning and age, which is problematic for the future of the fascist movement in America, but this issue falls outside the norm. You'll find a lot of young conservatives calling for an end to the needless killing of civilians. They won't call it a genocide because admitting Israel is a genocidal apartheid state is too far for them, but they can at least admit killing tens of thousands of children is not the right path here.
That kind of extremism (e.g not greenlighting any amount of culling of "human animals" Israel feels it needs to do) is unacceptable to the pro-Israel lobby, and they're not used to getting this kind of pushback from the American public.
As someone who has primarily used spaces, I still use the tab key. I sincerely hope most space users understand that your editor can expand your tab key into spaces, and people aren't genuinely going around spamming their spacebar 2->16 times for various indentation levels.
Glad someone said this, it bothers me even with human ages. Like there's this perception that as you get older you simply gain knowledge, wisdom, world experience, etc. Not a lot of people account for biological limits for knowledge/memory, nor degradation from aging.
If some young intern decided to try to have sex with Biden, I think there's genuinely a conversation to be had about if that's statutory rape. I think you'd need a healthcare professional to rule on if Biden has the mental capacity to fully consent. Similar to a drunk person. They're still obviously a person able to think/engage with the world, but they're heavily impaired and unable to fully consent as a result. Age impairs cognition too.
I understand your sentiment, but I'm curious if you'll actually commit to the principle you are espousing. Would you actually vote for a candidate that wants to bomb "only" 6 billion people over 7 billion, instead of "throwing away" your vote for someone who doesn't want to nuke the planet?
Agreed on the trolley scenario, but that's not exactly analogous. I'll try to make an analogy that extrapolates the principle of our current scenario to illustrate what I'm getting at.
Imagine there are 3 candidates, two major parties and a third party. Both candidates in the major parties want to nuke the planet to establish an American world government. Our guy wants to nuke 6 billion people, their guy wants to nuke 7 billion people. Polls show that the third party candidate has the same chance of winning as polls in the 2024 U.S election show. The third party candidate is against dropping nukes on the planet to establish a global America.
Do you vote for the one who wants to nuke 6 billion people as a form of harm reduction? Or is there some line that a candidate/party can cross that makes voting third party the best option, despite how unlikely they'll win?
I'm genuinely curious, would you vote for Hitler as a form of harm reduction? Obviously the genocide he did was bad, but say he was running against someone else who was also planning on committing a genocide.
The Nazis put money into infrastructure development, education (granted in this context it was also indoctrination, but there was genuine education being done too), expansion of welfare; better access to healthcare, public works programs, public health policies (though again, muddied with ideas about "racial purity").
Imagine he was running against another pro-genocide antisemite, but who was against all the welfare/public spending mentioned above, and instead wanted to deregulate the economy, causing even more material harm than the Nazis.
Would you be telling people to go out and vote for Hitler as a form of harm reduction? Is there literally no line a person/party can cross that makes them not worthy of a vote; no line that makes the system illegitimate and participation in it/implicit endorsement problematic?
"they can't learn anything" is too reductive. Try feeding GPT4 a language specification for a language that didn't exist at the time of its training, and then tell it to program in that language given a library that you give it.
It won't do well, but neither would a junior developer in raw vim/nano without compiler/linter feedback. It will roughly construct something that looks like that new language you fed it that it wasn't trained on. This is something that in theory LLMs can do well, so GPT5/6/etc. will do better, perhaps as well as any professional human programmer.
Their context windows have increased many times over. We're no longer operating in the 4/8k range, but instead 128k->1024k range. That's enough context to, from the perspective of an observer, learn an entirely new language, framework, and then write something almost usable in it. And 2024 isn't the end for context window size.
With the right tools (e.g input compiler errors and have the LLM reflect on how to fix said compiler errors), you'd get even more reliability, with just modern day LLMs. Get something more reliable, and effectively it'll do what we can do by learning.
So much work in programming isn't novel. You're not making something really new, but instead piecing together work other people did. Even when you make an entirely new library, it's using a language someone else wrote, libraries other people wrote, in an editor someone else wrote, on an O.S someone else wrote. We're all standing on the shoulders of giants.
18 months ago, chatgpt didn't exist. GPT3.5 wasn't publicly available.
At that same point 18 months ago, iPhone 14 was available. Now we have the iPhone 15.
People are used to LLMs/AI developing much faster, but you really have to keep in perspective how different this tech was 18 months ago. Comparing LLM and smartphone plateaus is just silly at the moment.
Yes they've been refining the GPT4 model for about a year now, but we've also got major competitors in the space that didn't exist 12 months ago. We got multimodality that didn't exist 12 months ago. Sora is mind bogglingly realistic; didn't exist 12 months ago.
GPT5 is just a few months away. If 4->5 is anything like 3->4, my career as a programmer will be over in the next 5 years. GPT4 already consistently outperforms college students that I help, and can often match junior developers in terms of reliability (though with far more confidence, which is problematic obviously). I don't think people realize how big of a deal that is.
People who go out and counter protest actively have given it more than a cursory thought. They know BLM isn't advocating for white genocide (okay, most of them understand this. There are some literal nazis/skin heads/white nationalists in the counter protesting groups that believe in The Great Replacement, but they believed this prior to BLM existing).
Yet they still go out and counter protest. It's not confusion at that point. You can't go up to an all lives matter reactionary and say "Hey! Did you know BLM doesn't actually want to murder all white people? Are you a fan of BLM now?" and actually expect any progress.