sun_the_second
could survive a COD lobby and a gay furry discord server
No bio...
User ID: 2725
If there's exceptions it means the rule exists. As you yourself stated, the black guys that do not belong to the well-known exception are not trusted.
I am entirely unsurprised that small town people can remember the few exceptions to the rule.
Not strictly on skin tone, but it is a marker for other factors, and it is making things all too easy for aspiring racists. No one cares to learn the subtle class markers like wearing your hat the wrong way or peasant pronunciation of certain vowels when you can just look at their face and instantly determine they are likely to be of a lower socio-cultural-intellectual-spiritual-economical class.
If we're going to have racism, it should at least be refined competitive racism based on nation and beer preferences and clothing, not casual "darker skin bad" racism.
I have been turned off from single player recently. Several games rot in my backlog after having been launched once or twice.
For multiplayer, I'm enjoying co-op Slay the Spire 2 and... "enjoying" is probably the wrong word for Marvel Rivals.
For non-video games, I've hit the 10th session of storytelling Exalted 2.5e for my party of five. We're still on the initial scenario, and I've probably been horrible at pacing, but what the hell, we seem to all be having fun. My players have just slain a major antagonist (a BDSM-clad deathknight wielding a huge artifact scythe, and no, I didn't make her up, she was in the printed adventure) with minimal losses yet appropriate tension.
The average movie goer without the pause button on hand wouldn't notice because all the shots are like 2 seconds long at most.
Computers didn't invent social media. People invented social media, engineering it carefully to be as addictive as possible.
Judging from what I see reposted about Mamdani, he could be elected solely by white atheist socialist-adjacents.
Having to know how to do what you say it should do necessitates that you say when you mean it to do more often than not. This applies to computers, especially at their inception, and does not apply to LLMs.
I honestly can't recall the last time I was at a house party and looked at someone's feet.
I think having an insubstantial connection is just a useful excuse to go get drunk together and maybe find more connections, not to only talk about that one thing. At least that's how non-autists seem to do it.
I keep hearing about how people are totally sure grass-touching can cure many ills, but never the accounts of it actually curing them.
That viewpoint seems to privilege the peoples who have shamelessly genocided other peoples from what is now their homeland before it became uncool.
I've reached the extent of what's currently written FWIW.
Caugh up to Reverend Insanity. @self_made_human might be interested in this.
Biggest hangup (aside from things like bad prose, which I've reached the stage of acceptance with):
To what, if any, extent should LLMs produce a mixture of races in their responses to race-neutral prompts?
Fully generalized: if training data has a large proportion of rubes and a small proportion of bleggs, the LLM ideally should reproduce that proportion of rubes and bleggs in its outputs (not rounding up or down in every output, but averaged out over several outputs).
I don't have the data but I heavily suspect that it currently prefers to output the most likely object (a rube) every time, especially if it suspects rubes are more desirable. I've seen a youtube short (epistemic level: youtube short) where they showed a diagram demonstrating that human output was fat around unpredictability while every big LLM family's output was fat around the average in the same way. It would explain why it feels like slop.
Having power over others is the only way to balance out others having power over you.
Cats do have loyalty, which is different from bred servility because it's not unconditional.
If it's clear to you, you can hire a bunch of junior engineers for your project and have them become greybeards for half the wage. Then you get more than a cookie.
Otherwise you only get a cookie, which is still more than being unclear (a whole cookie), so I don't know what injustice you see here.
Doesn't look like the youths are spending so much more on eating out that it is a big factor, the way I read this.
There is a difference between the kind of conscription where no one really wants to be the first to volunteer, yet will acquiesce if/when voluntold, and Ukraine. Men of apparent fighting age are being ganged up on and forcibly packed into buses by recruiting officers. Either the people do not want to fight or the government is being very stupid by overreaching where a gentler hand would work.
Also, it being a "normal" or "legitimate" thing to do or not has nothing to do with whether the people want to fight or not. You asserted they do. I see little evidence of such, and ample evidence to the contrary.
unless the people wish it (which they don't).
How do you figure that? I do not think the brutal extent of conscription in Ukraine is currently deniable. If the people wish it, how come volunteers are so insufficient? And it's not like you can ask them because elections were suspended.
Perhaps it is a noble and un-futile fight, but from what it seems, the people (as opposed to the leadership) are sorely lacking the will to fight it.
Property is something you can own.
Parents (including adoptive parents, or legal guardians) do not own their children.
It is possible to own a person extralegally (such as through enslavement by human trafficking), but this is not an inherent part of surrogacy.
Thus I figure surrogacy does not make children into property. Not any more than being able to waive parental rights does.
How do you define surrogacy as selling children if at no point does the child become the new parent's property?
- Prev
- Next

How so? Has the public opinion pendulum swung so hard the other way that you can't say you're leftist in polite conpany?
More options
Context Copy link