stale2002

6 ms·

1.
by stale2002 4d ago
> "humanity can't be destroyed by anything, because I said so" No, the argument is instead that the person claiming that humanity is going to be destroyed is making a fairly extraordinary claim and that requires fairly ex
2.
by stale2002 4d ago
> nor is it a universal counterargument Its not a counterargument to basically anything, except as to avoid having to deal with actual evidence. It is an argument that seems almost tailor made to have to ignore mountains of evidence agai
3.
by stale2002 4d ago
Awfully convenient isn't it? To invent a whole class of arguments that by definition can't be falsified. You can argue for basically anything if you then tack on the excuse of "Well the world would have ended already if it
4.
by stale2002 4d ago
Yes, there are many parts of those things that some people want to be automated. I and many others are able to execute on our creative vision much fasters and more effectively thanks to automation of that work.
5.
by stale2002 4d ago
The whole point of technology is to replace work that we don't want to do. You are attacking the chief reason why people use technology in the first place. Additionally, unemployment levels are perfectly fine. Clearly this mass unemp
6.
by stale2002 5d ago
You are looking at this all wrong. Give him the tools now and watch him be a better game dev today than a professional engineer from 4 years ago. He can work on his dreams as of this exact moment.
7.
by stale2002 7d ago
> you're saying the far-right and far-left terrorist orgs will support each other? I am saying that far left people put out support for what are arguably far right, religious extremist groups yes. The labels of left and right get bl
8.
by stale2002 7d ago
Yeah so I said this: "it involved actual terroristic actions of a variety of groups to sabotage critical infrastructure." I would say that people who are sabotaging powerplants count as being called far left terrorists. And that
9.
by stale2002 8d ago
As I said before, the answer is no I don't go around dress in black or wearing anarchist symbols and getting violent at riots. I do not do that so that would make me not fall under any type of anarchist label like that one.
10.
by stale2002 8d ago
> so not really the line you think you're drawing. It actually is a pretty good line. I am sure there are some edge cases, but the vast majority of designated terrorist organizations did more than enough to deserve being put on tha
11.
by stale2002 8d ago
Supporting actual attacks on shipping lanes, or supporting the russian war, or attacks done by designated terrorist organizations is what I am referring to that some of the hard leftists support. Yes, those things harm the USA, to explicitl
12.
by stale2002 9d ago
Far leftists are quite open about how they think the USA is the evil empire and that Russian, China, Iran, ect are the "multipolar" world that they support. You must be thinking of progressives who merely want free healthcare. Su
13.
by stale2002 9d ago
> You’re trying to say all groups committing a crime against the government are actual terrorists organizations No, I only said that the ones that are committing terrorist attacks, or similarly serious vigilante violence or sabotaging cr
14.
by stale2002 10d ago
I don't go around dressed in black with anarchist symbols and wearing a mask, attacking people or destroying stores at riots in the middle of the night, no. I generally stay away from that type of stuff and instead support non-violent,
15.
by stale2002 10d ago
Like the anarchist groups that dress in all black and attack people/infra/stores in the middle of the night during riot? Its hard to say, because political violence is a spectrum and the border is very blurry between being an orga
16.
by stale2002 10d ago
> You're missing the distinction between individual action No I'm not. I specially said "in groups".
17.
by stale2002 10d ago
Yeah, the basic alliance is that anyone who wants to harm the USA nominally is ok with working together regardless of contradicting underlying ideology. That why you'll see russia, iranian, marxist, and anarchist supporters/ideolo
18.
by stale2002 10d ago
No, its not random people on twitter. If you read the statements that were put it, it involved actual terroristic actions of a variety of groups to sabotage critical infrastructure.
19.
by stale2002 10d ago
Are you going around planning terrorist attacks, vigilante violence, sabotaging critical infrastructure in groups or consistently materially supporting those who do? If so then yes. If you aren't doing anything even close to this then
20.
by stale2002 10d ago
> But also, there's no organization called antifa, and no antifa members Left wing extremist groups absolutely exist. The fact that they don't go around wearing matching uniforms with the letters ANTIFA on them doesn't ch
21.
by stale2002 10d ago
Its not controversial to say that right wing extremists exist, some of which even commit violence, so your analogy isn't the brilliant whataboutism gotcha that you intended it to be. So yes, just like some very far right people exist,
22.
by stale2002 19d ago
> Putting citizens above profits doesn't seem like a very capitalist thing to do Do you... think that people who are pro capitalism believe that their own ideology is harmful? Obviously proponents of a belief think that their ideas
23.
by stale2002 20d ago
> Neither capitalism as a system nor corporations have an obligation to improve quality of life for their employees beyond their market value If by capitalism as a system, we are refering to countries that are capitalists, it seems fairl
24.
by stale2002 21d ago
> What does a CEO(and other managers) do really? The answer is to be responsible to the business. The buck stops at the CEO. Therefore, their responsibilities are technically everything in the entire company. And I think many people w
25.
by stale2002 21d ago
> Most capitalist countries have 100% employment for their citizens and little to no immigration You must have responded to the wrong post as it has nothing to do with my statement. That statement is that there is nothing about capitalis
26.
by stale2002 21d ago
Nothing in capitalism prevents a country from prioritizing its own citizens. And it is uncontroversial in most countries that a country should do this. So this isn't a contradiction. Indeed america is capitalist. And it is also prior
27.
by stale2002 1mo ago
> You cannot ignore the contract unless you /are/ a multibillion dollar company and can run the model entirely internally. Or do you propose to run an instance of Kimi K3 on your laptop? I think that there is a large swath of p
28.
by stale2002 1mo ago
Are you trying to imply, without making any direct argument, that this is never a useful frame of reference? In comparison to cloud services, having access to the assembly code can still be quite useful. This is especially true in the moder
29.
by stale2002 1mo ago
> You don't get why people would like to be in control of a powerful new technology You will not have that control. Even if everything were open source. This is because you don't have 100 million dollars of compute. There, th
30.
by stale2002 1mo ago
> The Kimi K3 'weights' are an opaque blob that can only be used by contract. No they are not. You can just ignore the contract. Unless you are a multi-billion dollar company, nobody will notice and you will get away with it.

More ›