ricecake

@ricecake@sh.itjust.works

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Nvidia Announces DLSS 5, and it adds... An AI slop filter over your game⁩ ⁨⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago⁩:

  And you didn’t even read past the first sentence I see.

  Saying they’re the same because they both use a neural network is roughly equivalent to saying things are they same because they’re both manipulating kinetic energy.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Nvidia Announces DLSS 5, and it adds... An AI slop filter over your game⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago⁩:

  … How if flying a spaceship different from driving a car? They’re both controlled applications of kinetic energy to move people or objects.

  At the end of the day, it’s all a pile of transistors and the only thing that is of import is the intent behind usage.

  In one case it’s saying you can use a neural net to take something rendered at resolution A/4 and make it visually indistinguishable from the same render at resolution A.
  The other is rendering something and radically changing the artistic or visual style.

  Upsampling can be replicated within some margin by lowering framerate and letting the GPU work longer on each frame. It strives to restore detail left out from working quicker by guessing.
  You cannot turn this feature off and get similar results by lowering the frame rate. It aims to add detail that was never present by guessing.

  Upsampling methods have been produced that don’t use neural networks. The differences in behavior are in the realm of efficiency, and in many cases you would be hard pressed to tell which is which. The neural network is an implementation detail.
  In the other case, the changes are more broad than can be captured by non AI techniques easily. The generative capabilities are central to the feature.

  Process matters, but zooming out too far makes everything identical, and the intent matters too. “I want to see your art better” as opposed to “I want to make your art better”.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨I was on social media before web browsers existed. I am Legion.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  That’s not bullying, that’s enforcing social mores.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The list is realistically so much longer.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  There’s no precedent at all. Precedent implies that it happened, which it didn’t.
  Something being thought of and dismissed is just not evidence for that thing being done.

  It’s not like it was even that original of an idea. There had been two plane hijackings by cubans in the past year. Proposing “what if a third went wrong” is hardly a masterclasses in outside the box thinking.

  We’ve done other false flag operations. Other terrible things to domestic civilians.
  Using that time we didn’t actually do anything as an example is just odd.

  Personally, I think people like it just because it has a cooler name. “Mongoose” just doesn’t have the same ring.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The list is realistically so much longer.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  And? What happened next? Did they do an operation Northwoods? Did we go to war with Cuba? Was Johnson more aggressive on Cuba than Kennedy, or was he actually more engaged on diplomatic fronts?

  I’m not forgetting anything. It just doesn’t fit with any narrative that makes a lick of goddamned sense. Like, Kennedy rejected Northwoods because he was worried the troops might be needed in Europe, so starting a war in Cuba would be a bad move.
  He was strongly in favor of every other operation they proposed as part of the larger plan.

  Why would a massive conspiracy exist to kill Kennedy for rejecting a plan and then… Not do the plan?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The list is realistically so much longer.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I agree, and feel similarly about the inclusion of operation Northwoods.
  It’s most prominently a horrifying plan that was rejected and remained classified, with the proposer being replaced shortly afterwards (it’s entirely possible that’s a coincidence).

  Someone thinking of something horrible and then not doing it isn’t evidence that they would do something similar. There’s no particular reason to think they hid evidence because they admitted in the same deeply classified documents to doing far worse things.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Modern problems require modern solutions⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I mean, I get that. As I said, it’s the surprise that confuses me. I understand “ugh, why are we putting profit in _____”. It’s that someone would go “whoah, hold on, people are running daycares for money?”

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Modern problems require modern solutions⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I’m honestly slightly confused by this response. Any business type will end up with some that do well, open more locations and get some manner of central office. It’ll inevitably be some manner of corporation because that just how we structure any business beyond small. The daycare is where the kids go and the office their handles local stuff like contact forms and medical notes, and corporate office handles billing and such.

  Like, yeah it’s weird for something as personal as childcare to be a franchise, but no one gets too worked up about corporate pharmacies and that’s literally trusting a stranger giving you a bottle of drugs to eat not to hand you the poison they keep a few feet over.

  It’s weird and kinda dystopian, but I’m confused by the shock.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Why do they turn Federation into a dystopia?⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  And significantly, if you needed someone to actually do a job that wasn’t made obsolete by the removal of material scarcity you’d need to find a way to make it meaningfully enticing to them. Material scarcity is the driver for so much suckage that it’s almost mind boggling how much would change if we even made a significant dent on it.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Why do they turn Federation into a dystopia?⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Waste and trash also aren’t an issue because of the aforementioned replicators. Waste and trash become the food. Energy is cheap, next to free, and about as clean as can be.
  Why would you live in squalor when you can just as easily push a button and teleport the trash and grime into the nothing?
  Education is cheap and easy because we have both plenty of educated people, and sentient AI. Same for medicine.

  It’s one of the few pieces of media that has traditionally outright agreed with the spirit of what you’re saying. There’s no need to shit on its message that if we find the cause to work together, we have it within us to develop fully automated luxury gay space communism because we’re more alike than we are different, and an exploration of those differences will bring us together.

  The difference between a post scarcity society and the good place is that it’s not that there’s no problems, it’s that there’s no significant material problems. And it’s not like the entire galaxy was like that.

  Cynicism becoming conflated with realism is boring.
  At it’s heart, the expanse was explicitly not post scarcity, so comparing it’s treatment of inequality with one where those problems have been solved is silly. It’s like saying the expanse is unrealistic because their spaceships are too fast, and Apollo 13 is a more realistic portrayal.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The cops pay Anon a visit⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Yeah, but why bother? They can just turn off the body camera and shoot them in self defense. Same outcome and way less work.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  Well, first off he wasn’t actually doing it after Celsius existed as a temperature scale. He made it a solid 18 years beforehand.
  Second, there are some issues. Specifically, ice freezes at 0, but it doesn’t stop getting colder. So if you have a bit of ice, that doesn’t tell you the temperature, just that it’s below a threshold. Boiling is more convenient because liquid water can’t get above 100, but you do have to consider side pressure.
  Fahrenheit used brine because as it freezes it forces salt out of the ice, making it more resistant to freezing. It self stabilizes its temperature, which is immensely handy.

  None of the people designing their scales envisioned that using the basic reference points for common calibration would be a thing. Just like how we don’t calibrate them with brine, ice, steam or butts today, instead relying on how we marked down how electrical resistance changes as a function of temperature and then calibrated reference numbers to get the scale right.

  It’s important to remember that the people in the past were largely not stupid, they simply hadn’t found out something we take for granted or they had priorities that we don’t.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  So you get in the bathtub with the bike pump and have the hose connected to a nozzle going out. You might need something stronger that shrinkwrap depending on what you get, but your bathtub is invariably able to handle 1 atmosphere of pressure.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  Or, hear me out: a bathtub, some shrinkwrap, a bicycle pump and so e good old fashioned grit and determination.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  I’m one of those people who knows we should standardize, bit also finds Fahrenheit just very convenient.

  Like, when people say it’s 50 out, I immediately know that it’s going to feel about halfway between what I know 0 and 100 feel like. No one can even put up the pretext of doing that with Celsius, because not even the most pedantic person ever bothers to tell you when it’s 100 c out.

  In seriousness though, the Fahrenheit scale isn’t non-sense, it’s just addressing things we don’t much need help with anymore. The zero point was chosen as a temperature you can create reliably without particularly sophisticated tools, and the range is so freezing and boiling are 180 degrees apart, putting them on the opposite sides of a dial.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  Ugh, I’m one of those people who will defend imperial as not being irrational, just built ad-hoc for purposes that aren’t in alignment with modern ones and … No, that’s not what Fahrenheit is.

  Fahrenheit was trying to make a temperature scale that was easy to recreate to ease the calibration of thermometers. Zero is a temperature that can be created in your garage with some ice, salt and water. 100 was his best, ultimately inaccurate, attempt to measure human body temperature, since it’s another easy calibration point, and from there water was defined as 32 and 212 so that they were 180 degrees apart, which would fit will on a temperature dial.
  Not irrational, not a comfort scale, and not in alignment with current needs.

  It’s pure coincidence that it kinda lines up with comfortable outdoor temperatures in the opinion of a good chunk of a population living in the northern part of the western hemisphere.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨He took it literally⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I agree with you. It’s just that the “right to remain silent” is the name for the category of right that the fifth amendment provides, not the actual right.
  The reason the interpretation is bullshit is because what the actual amendment says is stronger than a simple right to not speak: it’s very clearly intended to be freedom from being coerced to provide information that could hurt you. They shouldn’t be able to interrogate you at all until you clearly waive the right against self incrimination.
  You don’t have the literal right to remain silent. You have the right to tell them to stop coercing you, after which they have to end the interrogation.

  It’s not generally uncommon to have to do something to exercise a right. No one is passively invoking the right to petition their representatives or own weapons. The supreme Court has just unfortunately held that you have to tell the cops to stop pressuring you, instead of them not being able to start.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨He took it literally⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  And that’s exactly what I explained. There isn’t an answer that doesn’t involve the constitution and what judges had to say about things.
  considering the police are legally allowed to lie to you, the Miranda warning using the name for a legal concept instead of a more accurate description of the right is about the least abusive thing they can do.

  It’s not particularly weird for rights to need to be explicitly actioned in general, as an aside. You have to actively get the arms to bare them, write a letter to petition the government, ask for a lawyer and ask them to stop interrogation. Invoking a right isn’t weird, but in this case the actual right is freedom from being coerced into self incrimination. They shouldn’t be able to start interrogation until you unambiguously waive your rights.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨He took it literally⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Where do those words come from? Are they written into law? The wording is often policy, not law.

  The Miranda warning varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and doesn’t need to be read exactly because it’s a description of your fifth amendment rights, amongst others.

  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salinas_v._Texas

  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berghuis_v._Thompkins

  It’s not an exaggeration to say that you need to explicitly invoke the fifth to have its protections.
  The reason there’s a disconnect between what it seems like the warning is saying and the protections you actually have is because they’ve been rolling back the protections for years.
  Did you know that the courts decided that the Miranda warning doesn’t need to fully explain your rights?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨He took it literally⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Those are explicitly derived from the bit of the constitution I was referring to. That’s what defines what they have to tell you and what it means.

  I’m not sure what you’re looking for here. You asked why you would need to invoke a right, and why it would be this way. There’s simply isn’t an answer that doesn’t involve the constitution or judges. The authority figure is using words that judges outlined the basic gist of in 1965 and different judges have dialed back the protections of in the 2000s and earlier.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨He took it literally⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  To the best of my knowledge you telling someone you did something and them telling the cop is a good example of hearsay, or at least pretty arguable.

  Far easier to just have a standard camera in the room, since a video of a confession is far more compelling and sidesteps any arguments about hearsay.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨He took it literally⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Fun fact: if you haven’t been mirandized your silence is admissable, but not your answer. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salinas_v._Texas

  The correct answer is to plead the fifth if a cop says hello.
  It would be great if our system was set up such that there were people responsible for public safety the way firefighters are and, also like firefighters, don’t have the looming threat of crushing you with the weight of the law, but unlike firefighters don’t need to be ready next to a lot of bulky specialized equipment to be effective.
  But it’s not, so…

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨He took it literally⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  The (obviously flawed) reasoning the supreme Court used is that it’s the same as invoking the right to legal counsel: we tend to accept that you need to ask for a lawyer, they don’t just get you one. Likewise, if you want them to stop asking you questions you need to say so.

  Considering the right isn’t the “right to remain silent” we nickname it, but No person shall be … compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, it’s a bit preposterous. Like saying it was a legal warrantless search because you never said “stop”, you just locked the doors, tried to keep them out, and tried to keep them out of certain areas.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨He took it literally⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  You’re not wrong.

  There is a rationale, it just fails to be consistent with the reason the right is explicitly enumerated.

  Some rights are more about restraining the governments actions towards you. The right to legal counsel prohibits the government from putting you on trial totally lost and oblivious. The right to remain silent is a nickname we give to the prohibition on someone being “compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”.
  Rights that prohibit government actions are usually automatic: free speech, no unreasonable search and seizure, and so on all prohibit the government from doing something.
  The right to counsel requires the government to provide you with a lawyer if you need one, and to stop asking you questions if you ask for one until they show up.

  The conservative supreme Court majority held that the “right to remain silent” was a right to make the government stop, just like asking for a lawyer, and that it didn’t follow that the two rights needed to be invoked in different manners: no one has argued that their behavior should have implied they wanted a lawyer even if they didn’t say so. Further, they said that if “not speaking” is what constitutes invoking the fifth, then it opens more questions about what manner of not speaking counts as an invocation. If someone doesn’t answer, can the cop repeat themselves?
  Invoking the right however is unambiguous, making it a better legal standard.

  This falls apart not because of the nickname we give the right, but because of what it says and the intent behind it: “No person … shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”. The key word is “compelled”. The phrasing and intent are clear that it’s about compulsion , not invoking an entitlement. Any statement you make you should be able to refuse to allow to be used against you, otherwise it’s compulsion even if given willingly at the time.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨He took it literally⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  That’s not entirely accurate:

  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berghuis_v._Thompkins

  Your fifth amendment rights haven’t been invoked until you say so. The Miranda warning isn’t a guide for how to invoke the rights, just a notification that you have them.

  Now, it’s ridiculous that we’ve ended up here and it was a terrible ruling, both of them, but if you’re just quiet you haven’t invoked your right to silence anymore than you’ve invoked your right to legal counsel.
  Which is a hell of a position for the court to take on coerced confessions.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨He took it literally⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Yes, but the case being referenced involved what it means to invoke your fifth amendment rights.
  Is remaining silent invoking the right, or do you have to state “I am invoking the right to remain silent”, or some other statement?

  Per the supreme Court, you can’t passively invoke the right and can only do so actively. So simply not answering a question isn’t invoking the fifth amendment and could be used against you.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Anon tries to understand credit scores⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I’m pretty sure they see everything, but the way it’s chunked up can create artifacts. Balances are tabulated monthly, but they also see your payments. A higher balance means higher utilization which lowers your score. Paying early counts as a history of on time payment and lower utilization, which is good for your score.

  chase.com/…/should-you-pay-off-credit-card-early

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Anon tries to understand credit scores⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I mean, the rule is to not carry a balance, make payments on time, and don’t borrow more than you can pay back. They aren’t very cagey about those rules. The exact ways particular actions impact your score isn’t relevant to the best practices.

  There’s a lot wrong with the credit industry, but being upfront about payment practices really isn’t a problem.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Anon tries to understand credit scores⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Why on earth do you think that’s the case? They’re selling something, they’re not in one of the limited industries where you have limited rights to refuse, and method of payment isn’t one of the reasons you can’t refuse to do business with someone. A handful of places prohibit not accepting cash, but it’s not enough that I would assume that’s where they were, particularly if a business opted to just casually refuse.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Anon tries to understand credit scores⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  They can easily refuse cash. It’s not a debit until you owe them money. If they decide not to sell you a car then there’s no debt. You aren’t obligated to see someone a car if the manner of the sale isn’t to your liking.