queermunist she/her

Courts generally agree that a reasonable person could believe claims made in official promotional material. That’s why it’s not legal to outright lie in marketing and they need to go through so much trouble to properly word their statements so that they’re technically true. In this case, they’re just lying. They’re saying the AI is safe to use for these tasks and it is not.

More a problem with the marketing, right? Imagine if guns were marketed as safe and helpful back scratchers, and then someone shoots themselves because they used the gun to scratch their back.

Good thing we just started a war to paralyze global energy markets. That’ll help!

I usually use my memory when I want to look back on my entire day and know what I did.

How’s Libya doing these days? Is it good?

The hole is in the middle of a parking lot because the chatbot hallucinated the job order.

So basically, you’ve made up your mind and there’s no evidence that could ever be presented to you to change it.

That’s still embodied energy, so the question becomes; “How much energy does it take to actually make these materials?”

In particular, the device is packed with Metal-Organic Frameworks (MOFs), which are synthetic porous materials engineered at the molecular level to have huge surface areas. A few grams of an MOF can have a surface area equivalent to a football arena, according to the source.

That sounds pretty energy-intensive to me.

You aren’t asking a big enough question to actually grasp what the lesser evil even is.

The first question you really want to ask is “what is the primary contradiction?” We can discuss what that might be, US hegemony or Western imperialism or neocolonialism, but this will inform our understanding of how we should vote. Only once we identify the primary contradiction should we cast our votes in whatever way will advance the struggle against it.

Let’s say we identify US hegemony as the primary contradiction. Does voting for Harris help advance the struggle against US hegemony? No! She would have been a fine steward of the empire, if she was president the hegemon would be in better shape than it is under Trump and the struggle against it would be even harder.

Trump is wrecking the empire, and in light of this, Trump winning is actually a lesser evil. What we see under Trump is the US pulling back from all of its soft-power while threatening its own allies. Yes, it has become more violent, but the violence isn’t a sign of strength. The US is in a weaker position than it has ever been in my life. All is chaos under heaven, the situation is excellent.

But, if Trump winning was the lesser evil, does that mean we vote for Trump? Also no! It’s important for him to not actually ever be popular within the US, because that also erodes his own legitimacy among the US population and makes the US itself harder to govern. The fact that he “won” with 49.9% of the vote isn’t the best outcome, better would be losing the popular vote again, but it’s still good because forcing USAmericans to confront the weakness of their elections also weakens its position as the hegemon. They look at their own elections, look at Trump winning twice without ever getting a majority, and ask “do we live in a democracy?”

(The answer is no by the way.)

His unpopularity is why there was an uprising against ICE in Minnesota. There wouldn’t even be protests against ICE if Harris was president, and there weren’t under Biden despite him deporting more than Trump in his first term, but under Trump people can easily see what they have always been: colonial occupation troops. Under Democrats the streets are empty, under Trump the people fight back. The BLM uprisings happened under Trump, but it was Bill Clinton that gave us the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 to fill the prisons with Black people. This has to be factored in when we ask what the lesser evil is.

They’re both great evils, so identifying the primary contradiction is the only way we can identify what is to be done.

Notably, this is not accelerationism. The goal here isn’t to make things worse so they get better. The goal is to make the US empire weaker, because we have identified US hegemony as the primary contradiction and that’s what we are struggling against. Revolutionary defeatism, in other words.

The 'ha’s are the point of tickling actually!

Armpits are for tickling and I will hear no counterarguments.

Don’t want to do even that? Then stop getting fast food.

That’s exactly right. Being against tipping as a concept is fine, but the idea that we can end tipping culture by refusing to tip is fundamentally accelerationist. “Surely if we torture the workers enough they’ll be forced to demand higher wages!”

Either we refuse to even be customers for places that underpay their workers, or we tip generously to try to make up for it.

reddit.world

They said “China doesn’t have problems with homeless or unemployment” and that was correct, 5.1% unemployment is full employment. You’re just too up your own ass to communicate with, you just want to “win” instead of talk like a reasonable person. You see me as something inhuman, just another mindless hivemind NPC to crush with your incredible intellect.

This wasn’t a contest and you didn’t win anything, you just ruined a discussion for no reason.

… you’re really proving my point. You don’t care about anything I have to say or any of the facts or data that I quote or link to, you just want to pick and win fights.

It doesn’t matter that I find the LLM bubble stupid and I don’t think we’re even close to AI replacing human labor, because I dared correct you about China. It doesn’t matter that I think China isn’t far enough along the path of socialist development for it to actually be a good thing when AI does replace human labor. It doesn’t matter that my support for China has a lot of caveats and criticisms, some of which do surround queer rights. None of that nuance matters, nothing I say matters, and nothing I believe matters.

All that matters is that I’m in the way and that you need to tear me down so you can win the posting RPG.

There will be a point where it can take our jobs, though. The question is if the AI be privately or collectively owned. If its privately owned, we’re fucked and we’re all going to be turned into paperclips. If its collectively owned then we can decide which jobs are eliminated and the people who have had their jobs eliminated can help decide what they get to do next, now that they’re free.

Do you want to work for a wage for the rest of your life simply to survive? I certainly don’t.

We have to be careful, because if the AI which automates our labor is owned privately then it will be used to eliminate our jobs and then eliminate the surplus population left behind. AI which is owned collectively, however, will liberate us from work.

We just have to get to that stage of collective ownership. China hasn’t reached that stage of socialist development but they’re closer than anyone else and seem to be progressing in that direction. Not that you care, you just want to pick fights.

Anything between 4-6% is generally considered full employment by most countries, including the US. At that level the unemployment mostly consists of people between jobs, rather than people in long-term unemployment where they have no hope of finding work.

The homelessness number you’re referencing is misleading. They’re not unhoused, they’re living outside of their registered address. A day laborer that moves from city to city and stays in group homes is considered “homeless” but they’re not actually living on the street. Much of rural China has yet to be developed to a level that can sustain employment, so they have to migrate.

Not that you care.

It’s 5.1%

That’s considered pretty good in most countries.

🎵 It should also be noted a bottle of it was found
In the clenched dead hand of the white John Brown
Everytime it went 'round new people would find it
They would take their essence, put it in and grind it
In Russia, Africa, Asia too
Mao Tse-Tung made the flavors new 🎶

It would have made a difference in Michigan specifically. He won by 80 thousand votes.