AHemlocksLie

@AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip

This is a remote user, information on this page may be incomplete. View at Source ↗

⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨SBA #119 maths⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

But in the former, the 6 dividend would be over the entire 2(3) divisor.

I have never heard of or seen an example of anyone using / and ÷ in different ways. If you want multiple terms in your divisor, either write it as a large fraction with all relevant terms in the dividend or divisor, or use parentheses. This just seems like sloppy notation to me.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨SBA #119 maths⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
In that case, I’d say the answer is 1. Top and bottom are each resolved to the fullest extent possible before dividing top by bottom. It’s equivalent to (top)÷(bottom), but it’s clearer and preferable if you can easily format that way in my opinion, just harder on a computer.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨SBA #119 maths⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
I think it’s a little different when you’re working with variables. A variable with a coefficient is generally treated more as a single unit compared to two plain constants being operated on in some way. It’s an incomplete operation since there’s missing information.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨SBA #119 maths⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
Only if you forget that multiplication happens left to right and that a(b) is simply a different way to write a×b with no other extra steps or considerations. The P in PEMDAS just means resolve what’s INSIDE the parentheses first.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨SBA #119 maths⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
The P in PEMDAS just means resolve what’s inside the parentheses first. After that, it’s just simple multiplication with adjacent terms, and multiplication and division happen together left to right.

6÷2(1+2)

6÷2(3)

3(3)

9
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨North America contains some of the longest continuous decididous forest records on the planet.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:
The decrees are basically glorified memos. They hold little to no legal weight in and of themselves, except that they direct the agencies that work under the president’s control, so it’s less legally binding document and more written order from your boss. The problem is that he writes ones directing them to do illegal shit, and they just do it because they know Trump and the rest of the Republicans spent decades packing the courts to protect them when this day came, and if they packed the courts, they’re sure as hell not gonna ruin all that work by properly using their congressional powers.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨North America contains some of the longest continuous decididous forest records on the planet.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:
He is de facto incredibly powerful, but he is de jure not. He’s only capable of doing those things because the checks and balances failed through the coordinated efforts of hundreds of Republican congressmen. Every heinous act that goes unchecked bears the implicit seal of approval of the entire Republican party. He could do many of the things you claim he’s powerless to do, too, but he doesn’t want to, and all the mechanisms meant to force him to have failed.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨North America contains some of the longest continuous decididous forest records on the planet.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:
To be fair, in many ways the president doesn’t have the power. But Republicans in congress are complicit, so when he does incredibly illegal, batshit crazy stuff, none of the mechanisms to keep him in check function. Him being president is a big problem, but the real problem here is the complete abdication of responsibility by those meant to check him.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨It turns out that Juggalo makeup blocks facial recognition technology⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:
It’s been technically possible, but I think we’re only now getting to the point where it’s economically feasible to do on a large scale to a whole society.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨It turns out that Juggalo makeup blocks facial recognition technology⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:
God dammit, we can be tracked by the fucking tire sensors? Fucking hate this timeline…
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨It turns out that Juggalo makeup blocks facial recognition technology⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

repeating the digital beacons of everyone else

You can’t perfectly mimic everyone else and accomplish something unique at the same time, even if it’s something as simple as pulling up a webpage nobody else around is requesting. Your device must in some way identify itself to the network so it can actually receive everything they request, and that’s an avenue for identification and tracking.

Not too long ago I was watching a video about a guy that was a 100% match in the eyes of AI as someone that was trespassed by the casino. When the cops showed up and he presented his documents, the cops brought him to the station as they thought he must have given false ID when he was originally trespassed.

Sure, modern AI can’t push the limits like I’m talking about, but I’m not talking about doing all this with modern AI as it is now, and things are advancing extremely rapidly. Processing power available is, too, as companies churn out as many new data centers as they can. It might not be as long as we hope before the things I suggest become feasible.

He was eventually able to prove his innocence but the fact he was taken into custody because AI messed up makes me have no issue with people doing stuff to intentionally poison the data.

Yeah, modern AI is trained unethically at just about every step of the process, so poison away.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨It turns out that Juggalo makeup blocks facial recognition technology⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:
Even if businesses are willing to settle for good enough, governments most certainly will NOT. Those attempting to evade detection will be those they’re most interested in identifying, which is why I mentioned that failure to successfully falsify will get you flagged as having attempted it and probably how. From a government’s perspective, the ones attempting to evade detection are the ones most likely to be criminals or, even worse in their eyes, rebels. Governments, especially authoritarian ones, will make sure the tech constantly pushes the boundaries of what’s possible, or at the very least defeats the vast majority of known evasion techniques.

Then, if business really has left the evaders unidentified, they’ll start adopting the tech from government. Better data with no R&D? Why wouldn’t they at that point? Governments might even subsidize it because it helps them spread the greater surveillance network.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨It turns out that Juggalo makeup blocks facial recognition technology⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

The clothing they wear solves most of those

For now. This cat and mouse game will continue on and on. We’ll develop evasion techniques, they’ll learn how to recognize and see through them. We’ll develop new ones again, they’ll learn them again. What about if you speak near a camera? It’ll learn to analyze voice and diction. Voice scrambler? AI is learning to descramble video, can probably learn it for voice, too. Your clothing style will become a data point and an expensive one to consistently falsify. The locations you’re seen at is suggestive. If you walk a dog, good fucking luck convincing it to help you falsify data for the AI monitors.

Still, this is predicated on the assumption that you can recognize and falsify enough of the data points. My point is that they will collect however many data points it takes to make it nigh impossible to get a failure to identify you or a false positive. And if it’s a false positive, we have to question the ethics of pinning your trail on some other random dude.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨It turns out that Juggalo makeup blocks facial recognition technology⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:
That won’t stop corporations and governments from surveiling. They’ll still collect highly accurate information about you. They may not trust public data, but they’ll still trust the systems they use to surveil. They’ll still be right.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨It turns out that Juggalo makeup blocks facial recognition technology⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:
It won’t work alone for long in the age of AI. You won’t be tracked and identified by face alone. It’ll be a complex array of data points. Your face, your hair, your eye color if the cameras have the resolution, your height, your gait, your posture, your scars and injuries, your visible birth defects, whether you use mobility aids, the wireless devices emitting signals in your pockets, the list goes on and on. They’ll assemble dozens of data points and make it extremely difficult to falsify enough to avoid detection instead of just getting flagged as suspicious.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Human experimentation, one way or the other.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

I’m not talking about people who had a “cure” but about those who shared their experiences openly while being censored and dismissed. People who are not part of a campaign.

You’re assuming you can tell when a stranger on the internet is part of a campaign or mistakenly parroting something from a campaign. The internet is heavily astroturfed, especially social media. Several hugely popular pieces of misinformation have been traced back to just a handful of accounts that look like and pose as regular people but, upon thorough inspection, are very clearly lying either for money or for propaganda. Those accounts lied, not got it wrong, lied, and millions of people parroted it. Many of them lied a bit themselves and framed it as something that totally happened to someone they directly know.

You assume a lot, and the way you associate everything with anti-vaxxers only shows how much governments have turned this into a political issue.

…Motherfucker, it’s not a politics issue, it’s a science issue. Antivaxxers have REPEATEDLY shown they don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about. At best, they’re scared of what they don’t understand and make mistakes. At worst, they’re grifting at the expense of people’s health. Many just want to feel smart, like they’re in on a secret the rest of society can’t recognize, and they’re willing to endanger people’s health and wellbeing to get that feeling. In no case are they overall correct, even if they manage to occasionally brush against truth as they flounder. You wanted examples of why regular people might go on the internet and lie about the vaccines, and antivaxxers are a great example because everything that comes out of their mouths on that topic is either half baked or, relevant to the question at hand, an outright lie. Some of them will just make up random shit on the fly to defend their incorrect beliefs. Shit, some people are just pathological liars, and some portion of them will be antivax or whatever.

If I say someone close to me had side effects after the vaccine, suddenly I’m assumed to also drink bleach and take dewormers.

I don’t think anyone with sense and information doubts that people experienced side effects. When I got my COVID vaccines, we had to wait a little while on site in case we had an allergic reaction or any other sort of adverse reaction. What most of the doubters don’t believe is the people suggesting it’s way more dangerous than anyone thought because the vast majority of the evidence is someone claiming that their cousin’s uncle’s dog’s vet’s new girlfriend he just met totally suffered life altering consequences. The vast majority is bullshit, whether the person saying it knows it or not, and the remainder is such a small portion, it most likely doesn’t make a significant difference from reported results and risks.

At this point, you’re basically unable to think critically or discuss the negative. Being part of a herd also comes with some dangerous aspects.

No, I can do that. The problem is that critical thinking leads me to the realization that there’s never any fucking evidence, at all, ever. Some schmuck that may or may not be AI with a username I’ve never seen before can write some words on social media about a thing that totally definitely happened to someone, but that’s it, that’s all it is. There’s never unadulterated pictures or video. No medical records from the hospital visit such a severe reaction surely must have required. No articles from a respected journalist known to thoroughly vet sources. No medical or scientific studies that hold up to thorough scrutiny. Do some people have severe negative reactions? Yeah, the manufacturers literally warn us of them. Is it the huge threat that some people made it out to be? Almost certainly not according to the available legitimate evidence.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Human experimentation, one way or the other.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:
Cue the classic Arthur meme, “do you really think someone would do that? Just go on the internet and tell lies?”

How about for money? How many grifters pushed their own protective supplements? You think pharma maybe would pay some astroturfers to push the ivermectin that didn’t do dick for anyone that didn’t have worms already because it’s fucking dewormer? How many antivaxxers made up bullshit about it just like they do every other vaccine? How many wealthy people down played everything and helped push lies so their workers would get the fuck back in the office/factory? How many people just said some stupid shit and doubled down to protect their ego when called out?

Like here’s the real issue. You’ve put no real thought at all into why someone might lie about it, as evidenced by the fact that you can only conceive of it being state actors while I came up with all those people incentivized to lie off the top of my head. And then, after putting no real effort into reflection or anything, you look around at all the people who can come up with reasons you’re wrong and claim it feels like a cult.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Human experimentation, one way or the other.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:
Probably more to do with the fact that there is, at most, a tiny grain of truth at the core, but it’s wrapped in a mountain of bullshit.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Valves first title with a 3 in it⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:
Nah, that’s too obvious, could have just been a coincidence. This, though…
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨It's OK to just like lemon water.⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:
That’s only after your mouth and esophagus. Those aren’t really geared to tolerate exposure to strong acids or bases. Even foods that aren’t acidic enough to immediately damage these regions can still contribute to tooth enamel being worn away, for example. It’s either strong enough to at least consider the impact on those, or it’s weak enough that adding lemon is a questionable move.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨It's OK to just like lemon water.⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:
True, but your body will not enjoy water that’s very alkaline, so there’s a chance it’s sufficient since lemon is pretty acidic.

Plus, if the whole point of it is to be alkaline, why directly counter that with what you add?
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨If you got in a time machine⁩ ⁨⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:
If you’ve got a spare PC or one that’s always online, you can host something like Jellyfin for yourself. Make your own streaming service. ~~With blackjack and hookers.~~
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨I knew I should have cancelled the order 😑⁩ ⁨⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:
I bought something that never shipped once. Seller just never responded to anything. Tried and tried to get in touch with eBay, scoured their site for contact info, but ultimately never even got to talk to anyone about it. No way to even ask for a refund.

So I called the bank and filed a charge back. And I got every penny back.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Owing your home today is nearly impossible, but even if you did the ever increasing property taxes will bury you⁩ ⁨⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:
I’m sorry to bring this up again so much later, but I apparently missed the notification at the time, and with the conversation just seeming to start to turn productive, it seemed like a waste to just ignore it.

Because the entire housing market is unreasonable in almost every city in the Western world. It’s not just a few outliers here and there that can be compared to some average. The average itself is completely out of whack. We can’t just rein in the crazy part of the market; the whole market is crazy.

This is a result of our markets emphasizing residential real estate as an investment tool. Homes aren’t just places to live, they’re pathways to profits, even if you live in them, and especially if you don’t. Countries like Japan don’t encourage it the same way, and it helps keep housing prices in check. It’s obviously not perfect, but after some quick checks, it does appear that even the most expensive cities in Japan are still less expensive than ones in the most expensive US cities, even with all their population density and the pressure that puts on housing.

Either we pick a semi-arbitrary value and tax above that (your plan) or we introduce a graduated, progressive tax on all homes (my plan). Introducing exemptions and especially benefit cliffs has historically always had crazy unforeseen negative consequences. A tax on all homes will by itself automatically bring the market closer to equilibrium.

I could support a bracketed plan. I just think the bottom bracket should be 0%, and I probably think the bracket should be bigger than you do.

Moreover, I would argue that anyone who owns a home at all is already of enough means that they don’t need tax breaks.

If they’re well off, I’m not opposed to them paying more taxes. But since I think housing should be a right, I don’t think anyone should be taxed out of their homes except maybe those who are far more than simply comfortable in an average family home. I’m not opposed to ensuring people contribute. I just don’t think this is an appropriate mechanism for it. People care about a society that cares about them. Let society ensure they keep their homes if they’re paid off.

Home ownership is not essential. Having shelter is essential, which is why I support taxpayer funded grants to homeless people etc, but home ownership is not and should not be a fundamental right. If you can afford to buy a house, you can afford to pay taxes.

And this is where we disagree. The only truly secure shelter is one you own. Shelter that no landlord can evict you from. Shelter that no government can seize for taxes. I’ve no problem with renting for people who don’t want to commit to a home for whatever reason, but if someone wants to own their home, they should be fully capable of buying and owning their home. If you want to tax people on their homes, make sure every single person who genuinely wants one and is willing to work for it is able to get one. Then we can consider taxing homes, but not before.

But relevant to this conversation, social security in its current form is not a pension. If all you’re living on is social security, you probably can’t afford to retire. If you’re physically unable to work, then that’s disability. If you don’t have enough money saved up to pay for the life you want, but happen to be age 65, you’re not retired. You have to keep working. … I’m ignoring social security because it’s not a retirement plan

For 1 in 7 recipients, Social Security is at least 90% of their income. That’s over 10 million people. For those people, it very much is their pension. It very much is their retirement plan.

Now you get to experience the pain of renters being priced out of their own neighborhoods, but also with a small golden parachute to take with you.

This just comes across as bitter, as if you’re happy to see someone who managed to succeed in spite of a rigged system suffer. I don’t think that perspective is productive. Like I said earlier in this post, people care about a society that cares about them. Housing is one of our most fundamental needs. We shouldn’t be in the business of strong arming people out of reasonable homes. They still need an income to survive, and that provides a way to tax them.

And it makes things less bad in general for everyone by helping to bring housing costs down across the board.

This is true. I just don’t think it’s the right approach.

Also, just to keep this conversation in perspective, I don’t think this is the MAIN reason why housing is crazy in places that have similar tax carve-outs for homeowners. I actually think that’s zoning and local NIMBYism.

I think this is somewhat true, but I think they’re also symptoms of homes being treated as investments. A lot of NIMBYism arises from people trying to protect their most valuable investment and trying to make sure it continues to appreciate in value. This is also true to an extent about zoning, but part of zoning was at least initially racially motivated, so it’s a bit mixed on that one.

In general, I think your intentions are good, I just think you’re a little too eager to squeeze people who are marginally better off than you compared to the real problem, which is the parasitic owner class. And I don’t mean just home owners, I mean business owners, landlords, the people who make money off the money they already have. They do no actual work, collect all the profits, buy up our necessities, sell them back to us, pay as little tax as possible, and leave us to squabble over how the rest of us are going to finance society.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Anon is dehydrated⁩ ⁨⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:
If you have to worry about it getting in you and disturbing your gut biome, hell yes. That thing is for external use only.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Anon is dehydrated⁩ ⁨⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:
…how high are you setting the pressure on that thing?
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Financially rewarding and you will always have a job⁩ ⁨⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:
Don’t forget that loans are probably deferred through the PhD, so that’s like 4+ years of accumulated interest on top.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Oh Kurt Gödel, you lovable logician freak.⁩ ⁨⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:
I don’t think they ever publicly stated what the flaw was. Would love to know, too.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Microsoft has never been good at running game studios, which is a problem when it owns them all⁩ ⁨⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:
Yes, it did eliminate competition. They’re no longer competition once Microsoft buys them. They’re employees, possibly if a subsidiary, who contribute to Microsoft’s profits.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Asus and Lenovo’s handhelds get price hike as Valve pauses some Steam Deck sales⁩ ⁨⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:
And on Switch, it’s forbidden typically. Which is part of why people advocate for the Steam Deck instead. From Nintendo’s perspective, this very much is a vulnerability. It’s just not leading to custom firmware or ROM dumps from what I understand, so it’s not even close to the most significant vulnerability.