Soleos @ Soleos @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

395

Joined

2 yr. ago

You bet there were. There were many that also just said shot/shooting. Many non-US western outlets are using killed/killing in the headline. US outlets use a mixture of language even within the same outlet, or won't have it in the outline but will have it in the text. Here's a title from CBS https://youtu.be/HSKaceREFlQ

I'm not saying there isn't an overall bias towards distancing law enforcement from killings from words that carry negative connotations--there is. I was adding context to how "murder" is used in media and now I'm suggesting that some major outlets see what's going on and are calling it what it is directly within the bounds of good journalism.

We say murder and it's understood as people talking about what happened. When a news outlet says murder it's considered reporting a legal conviction. There are good reasons why these conventions exist. And it's the same as why headlines weren't saying Luigi Mangionr murdered Brian Thompson.

They literally teach you this in highschool science. They teach you that the universe is a dynamic system driven by entropy. They teach you that equilibrium, i.e. a state of stability in a dynamic system, is achieved when the rate of structural formation equals the rate of destruction, e.g. bonds forming/breaking, population birth/death, organizing/disorganizing one's room... Managing while not burning out is stability.

The classic question of "when would any of this be applicable in the real world" is intended to be a critique of how school curriculums can be dated or out of touch with chages in how the world works. It also highlights the often understated goal of a good education--shaping students into people who have the fundamental tools and the mindset to actively answer that crucial question for themselves.

The how does matter. You can appreciate the removal of a despot and still oppose unilateral regime change by force--especially one so explicitly motivated by resource exploitation. This is very different from the UN-sanctioned and NATO-led intervention that deposed Gaddafi.

Would you describe China attacking North Korea or Cambodia or another SE Asian dictatorship to depose their leadership as "accidentally doing something right"?

Part of the reason why it may seem like there's little paying user demand is that you may be thinking of demand in terms of individual consumers as the source of demand. However there is also the world of B2B, where I imagine the bulk of demand is coming from. Business requirements for service tend to be more extensive and they will pay for it.

Right, but in the same spirit, we're not just talking about LLMs. If we're being accurate, the common interface we're used to with ChatGPT or Gemini, they are a system of different models including LLMs and other models for images, or sound.

If we're talking AI in movies and music, besides LLMs for writing, we're mainly concerned with diffusion models

If we're talking AI for wearables... That's usually more on the sensor/classification side of ML, so it's not even generative.

It's a common mistake to assume that gun buybacks are being proposed as a solution. The solutions being proposed are a set of laws/policies to tighten gun controls, like who's allowed to buy guns, what guns are allowed to be owned and how many, improving checks and mitigating newer loopholes.

Tighter gun controls are shown to reduce mass shootings. In Australia, the laws have loosened a lot since the big wave of gun laws in 1996. The buyback program is a consequence of bringing people in line with the new laws.

The realistic goal is not to make it absolutely impossible for a motivated extremist with lots of resources to plan and commit a mass shooting, it's to make it much harder to prepare to do and to create more opportunities to notice their preparation.

Like I said, I agree it sucks. I've had the exact same thought many times.

I agree lots of things about word sucks. But FYI single page landscape is achieved by using two section breaks. It's not ideal, but its somewhat understandable given how styles are prioritized. I've tried others that work well, but they also suffer on things that word does well that we take for granted.

Holy fuck, I think I conflated this with his BrownU comment, I saw some headlines referring to this one... But Jesus I didn't know it was that bad.

Some people who face reasonable trade-offs in doing so have a choice. Others who face unreasonable trade-offs have less of a choice. It's usually quite difficult to tell when it's a stranger you're overhearing without making assumptions.

True, but if Elon gave you $1 million in Tesla stock you could still easily sell it, be taxed on it, and use the remainder to buy a lot of bread.

I’m going to be the person who does this I guess. Algae is an alternative term outside of the standard domain/kingdom taxonomy, so it actually spans multiple kingdoms. Most green, red, and brown algae are in the plantae kingdom, i.e. plants. Other algae can be protists or bacteria. The shared trait is that they are non-land photosynthetic organisms. Fossil fuels can be divided into coal (mostly formed from land plants), oil (algae/plankton), and natural gas (algae/plankton). Still classification I guess, but not what people would think when reading this.

While we often gravitate towards putting things precisely into categories, it's important to remember that classifications systems are structures imposed on continuous and complex phenomena for pragmatic purposes. They should not be conflated with the phenomena itself.

It's good to correct misconceptions, but sometimes over focusing on categories distracts from the meaning or sentiment being conveyed, in which case it may be better to be generous with partially correct statements and let it go.

The counter-claim is not that racism is exclusively a men's issue. The counter-claim is that the claim "men's rights don't vary by state" is false, as evidenced an example of how men's rights do vary by state. The implied part that should have been explicit is that the way racism manifests from state to state also has gendered aspects, with some disproportionately affecting women (e.g. hair/dress policing in the workplace) but some also disproportionately affecting men (e.g. incarceration). That is to say, racism and sexism are intersectional. Another example might be how custody rights typically vary from state to state often unjustly disfavoring the father, given all other things being equal.

I'd suggest that this argument does not go against the underlying position of OP that "patriarchy bad", rather it corrects OP to highlight how institutional sexism typically falls along normative/conservative conceptions of gender for men too. That is to say "patriarchy bad mostly for women, but also bad for men too".

What do you mean when you say "political"?

I think it echoes that video of those two Apache crews blowing up civilians in Baghdad and then targetting people who came to help the injured. One of the most chilling parts of that video was probably how casually routine it all seemed. Can only imagine what footage existed that never got leaked.

I agree, I'm separating the justification of the engagement from how they label people. So the parallel I'm drawing only has to do with how they loosely label people as part of a group based on broad characteristics once they decide a group can be a valid military target, i.e. "insurgents" or "narco-terrorists".

Declaring drug smugglers as valid military targets is certainly new, but ordering strikes on military targets on the thin rationale of "hey, they look like the group we said we can hit" is not new for the US military.

If it's not obvious, I disagree with both of these issues.

I agree, but it's also consistent with how the US operates. Through Afghanistan's and Iraq, anyone appearing as a military-aged male in the vicinity of an operation (e.g. a village where insurgents were shooting from) was labeled an enemy combatant and treated as valid targets.

I mean... that is a frontier where no Trek has gone before!