dools

That's because they're nazis not because they're white

So that screenshot is fucking bullshit then. Classic.

AI Guilfoyle and AI Dinesh

I don't even know why they bother with that kind of research. It's obvious that Trump can just lie and all his supporters believe it because they have a propaganda arm that's perceived as "news". The Trump believers all think that "MSM" is lying to them but for some reason they think that Fox and NewsMax and Alex Jones aren't (when the exact opposite is true).

It's like the whole hush money thing. Turns out it just doesn't matter, they should have let Stormy Daniels say whatever she wants because Trump just has to go on stage and make stuff up and then Hannity will repeat it and it becomes right-wing canon.

Ah okay. So I searched for the article which is here:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/aug/06/engl...

The myth it is referring to is that there is a two-tiered system targeting white people. That's obviously a myth -- the notes are probably referring to instances where the Guardian has claimed that police treat racial minorities differently which is quite probably the case (happens everywhere else in the old British Empire so not sure why Britain would be any different).

I found the post on ex-Twitter:

https://x.com/guardian/status/1820788959095529653

But that's from 6 August, not 8 August as per the screenshot and there is no community note on it. I can't find a post by the Guardian about this on 8 August, maybe they deleted it? Does seem weird that they would delete one and not the other. It also seems that one would get community noted and not the other (especially since the 6 August post has 1.6m views and the 8 August post screenshotted has 60k views).

I tried to find the articles shown in the community note in the screenshot, and I can find some about two-tier policing that don't really seem directly related to this.

Maybe I can't find the one that's screenshotted because I don't have an account, maybe they deleted that one but not the 6 August one, maybe the screenshot is fabricated.

Either way, I'm quite sure that this "two-tier policing" claim is of the same ilk that equates rejecting racism with being racist; ie. the "leftist bullies" idea. That violent right-wing protests are being "treated differently" because they're white, rather than treated differently because they're a bunch of psychos being whipped into a frenzy by lies spread on ex-Twitter by influencers, including Elon Musk.

I wouldn't say that's the same as claims that, for example, black people are more likely to be subject to police brutality. But right-wingers love to make claims about "reverse racism".

FTA "With over two million users, Keras has become a cornerstone of AI development, streamlining complex workflows and democratizing access to cutting-edge technology. It powers numerous applications at Google and across the world, from the Waymo autonomous cars, to your daily YouTube, Netflix, and Spotify recommendations."

I'm not sure about the veracity of your claims of bias pre-Musk (I have heard of the NY Post story issue, as far as I'm aware they suppressed it on advice from law enforcement that it was foreign propaganda, which was later withdrawn and the block removed).

However in answer to this question:

> Did X suppress support of the other side?

If you have 2 options and you promote one artificially then that is the same as suppressing the other option, in either case you're making sure more people see one option than the other.

I deleted Twitter as soon as musk took over because he’s a feudalist

They said that their content can still be shared there.

Also that community note just says they have been consistently saying the same thing for decades which sounds okay to me.

Musk claims he is trying to be an open and free speech town square. I don’t have an opinion on whether he did this or not but it is certainly the case that if he put his finger on the scales that goes against his claims.

Ahhh a slice line

In about 2007 or so my brother and I used to find super obscure blogs with no comments, read them and then write detailed responses to the author and share it with our friends. We always kept it positive, and said encouraging things. Most of the time the posts had been written in the 90s or early 2000s. We just did it knowing that probably one or two people would get notified of a new comment and maybe feel happy that someone read their post.

Yep, the "everyone else has BLAH" argument is a strong one. If we collectively take action through government to set a standard it is MUCH easier to shut down those self-fulfilling claims.

The only reason people vote for conservatives is because they're selfish or ignorant. This is obvious because there are 2 things in the economy: labour and capital. It is no coindence then that democracies invariably develop 2 parties. One of those parties ostensibly represents the intrests of labour. As such the other must represent the interests of capital. But how could a party that benefits so few, ever win a majority? Well, a combination of selfish people (those who benefit directly from the policies) and ignorant people (those who have been convinced by any number of falsehoods to vote against their own economic interests).

> A lot of "tin-foil hat" things seem pretty real.

Yes it's tragically ironic that the people who believe most in outlandish conspiracy theories vote for the people who are openly involved in the most outlandish conspiracies, none of which said conspiracy theorists care about.

> As an Italian I'm stoked that my country has given up sovereignty on money printing, it would've been a disaster otherwise as it has been for decades before.

My point is that sovereignty over issuing currency is synonymous with sovereignty in general.

What you're saying is that you're glad the government in Italy is more like a state, than a nation.

That's a fine point of view, but it implies that your country is incapable of self-governance. Do you think that's the case?

It should also be noted that I don't think there is any issue with economic federation, only that there is economic federation without political federation. As such, you have a monetary body whose power exceeds any political authority. However monetary policy can't truly operate in the absence of fiscal policy, so what you really have is a bank as your federal government.

It's handy to have the same currency, but it's a terrible choice economically because it limits the sovereignty of each nation.

"But there is much more to it all. It needs to be emphasised at the start that the establishment of a single currency in the EC would indeed bring to an end the sovereignty of its component nations and their power to take independent action on major issues. As Mr Tim Congdon has argued very cogently, the power to issue its own money, to make drafts on its own central bank, is the main thing which defines national independence. If a country gives up or loses this power, it acquires the status of a local authority or colony. Local authorities and regions obviously cannot devalue. But they also lose the power to finance deficits through money creation while other methods of raising finance are subject to central regulation. Nor can they change interest rates. As local authorities possess none of the instruments of macro-economic policy, their political choice is confined to relatively minor matters of emphasis – a bit more education here, a bit less infrastructure there. I think that when Jacques Delors lays new emphasis on the principle of ‘subsidiarity’, he is really only telling us we will be allowed to make decisions about a larger number of relatively unimportant matters than we might previously have supposed. Perhaps he will let us have curly cucumbers after all. Big deal!"

https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v14/n19/wynne-godley/maastri...

All countries in the Eurozone monetary system are hamstrung by the fact that they don’t issue their own currencies.

There is no fiscal authority at the same level as the monetary authority so they’re like states rather than countries but with no federal government.

When my Aunt was diagnosed with MS in the 80s it was a crippling and degenerative ailment.

When my brother was diagnosed with MS ~30 years later, it was a nothing burger. He gets an infusion monthly and suffers no significant impact on his quality of life.

> But the overall 'subscription everything' model is not really justified by costs

Probably shouldn't subscribe then ...

Same with Workflow/shortcuts

Bender: Now Wireless Joe Jackson, there was a blern-hitting machine!

Leela: Exactly! He was a machine designed to hit blerns!

Also I went to a local Viking fair and it was like walking around Hyrule.

> But the idea of letting an LLM write/move large swaths of code seems so incredibly irresponsible

I heard a similar thing from a dude when I said I use it for bash scripts instead of copying and pasting things off StackOverflow.

He was a bit "get off my lawny" about the idea of running any code you didn't write, especially bash scripts in a terminal.

It is obviously the case that I didn't write most of the code in the world by a very large margin, but even not taking it to extremes if I'm working on a team and people are writing code how is it any different? Everyone makes mistakes, I make mistakes.

I think it's a bad idea to run things that you don't at least understand what it's going to do but the speed with which ChatGPT can produce, for example, gcloud shell commands to manage resources is lightning fast (all of which is very readable, just takes a while if you want to look it up and compose the commands yourself).

If your quality control method is "making sure there are no mistakes" then it's already broken regardless of where the code comes from. Me reviewing AI code is no different from me reviewing anyone else's code.

Me testing AI code using unit or integration tests is no different from testing anyone else's code, or my own code for that matter.

> I'm actually very curious why AI use is such a bi-modal experience

I think it's just that it's better at some things than others. Lucky for people who happen to be working in python/node/php/bash/sql/java probably unlucky for people writing Go and Rust (I'm hypothesising because I don't know Go or Rust nor have I ever used them but when the AI doesn't know something it REALLY doesn't know it, like it goes from being insanely useful to utterly useless).

> I use AI autocomplete 0% of the time as I found that workflow was not as effective as me just writing code, but most of my most successful work using AI is a chat dialogue where I'm letting it build large swaths of the project a file or parts of a file at a time, with me reviewing and coaching.

Me too, the way I use it is more like pair programming.

Best use case I can think of is replacing the die roller in the board game trouble.

“You can pop a lot of trouble in the pop o matic bubble”

It's logically impossible for a government to borrow the currency it issues. What we refer to as borrowing is just swapping one government liability (reserve balances) for another (treasury bonds).

This isn't some accident, it is the stated aim, and result of systematic academic capture by Austro-libertarian economists and right wing libertarians.

Or is the REAL punchline the fact that Musk has optimised his entire empire to tap into the hacker ethos/ideals as the world's biggest pump n dump scheme? He seems to just do things that have the biggest wow factor because growth stocks need to keep growing otherwise there is no point in owning them.

Not really, if there was no tax there would be no money.

The most succinct way that I have found to express the relationship between taxation and spending is that spending at the federal level is constrained by aggregate spending this year, not tax receipts last year.