jkf
5d ago
Do you have an example conversation here? If the women are literally saying "men amirite" in response to any kinda normal conversation starter, it does seem like a weird crowd.
jkf
5d ago
it was common to object to the HPV vaccine.
Isn't this more of a 'why should my son take a shot so your daughter can (slightly) lessen the risk of her slutting around' thing than a true concern about vax safety?
jkf
5d ago
Truckers (very memorably) were (newly!) banned from crossing the Canada-US border in early 2022 without proof of vaccination -- whether this was hysterical or not is I suppose something we could discuss, but I don't see how it could be because of a thing that was not 'a going concern'?
jkf
5d ago
Maybe -- but the pandemic was still very much a 'going concern' in that period?
jkf
6d ago
Yes, and those options are equally available to good and bad people alike -- indeed I suspect that Bad People are usually a little better at them.
jkf
6d ago
I believe the accepted phrase is "Women! Can't live with em..."
<awkward silence>
jkf
7d ago
You are confusing 'liberalist state with robust rule of law' with 'democracy' -- the two are pretty orthogonal, although in practice they are often seen together these days due to accidents of history.
jkf
8d ago
If you find yourself talking with real salt of the earth rednecks, then I'll recommend you moderate your y'alling so you don't appear like or feel like a phony. They generally won't find "you guys" problematic in the ways urbane, middle class professionals might."
Now I'm picturing a bunch of farmers sitting on a tailgate, chewing straw and scolding me about gender inclusivity -- thanks.
Seems like the only time I might need y'all is if I'm surrounded by a people who are themselves phony y'all'ers -- I do use 'folks' sometimes but have a similar problem in which I feel like I'm impersonating a beardy Berkeley hippie. So many problems...
jkf
8d ago
So what's the problem? The mugshot would be "copyright Waukesha Sheriff's dept" (assuming that it's copyrightable, as you suggest) and the rationale some variation on 'fair use'.
jkf
8d ago
The equivalent article for Charlottesville uses a the work of a newspaper photographer who literally won a Pulitzer for it -- reduced in resolution, relying on fair use I presume. Does WM really think that the Waukesha Sheriff's department is more likely to sue for infringement than an actual news photographer?
jkf
8d ago
I didn't follow the trial livestream, but seem to recall testimony indicating that he was deliberately swerving at people trying to get out of his way (also IIRC there was no police pursuit until after he drove through the parade?) -- seems more like 'going postal' than terrorism to me, but well beyond reckless disregard.
(with the additional spice that the Waukesha Christmas Parade is probably the whitest thing ever, so if one decided to go postal on white people specifically it would be a sensible target -- I don't think 'hate crime' enhancements were pursued though?)
jkf
8d ago
Yes, police departments do not typically license their mugshots -- this does not mean that they aren't in the public domain.
jkf
8d ago
That seems extremely unlikely -- there are numerous mug-shots, as seen on many news sites (including one linked in this very thread).
What is the licensing issue with a mug-shot?
"Wikipedia editors make up excuses to justify ideological narrative shaping on hot-CW related topics" on the other hand... would not be a big surprise to me.
jkf
8d ago
You might be thinking of Darrell Edward Brooks Jr -- you will note that there is not a picture of him in the Wikipedia article, and For Some Reason nobody has heard nearly as much about him deliberately driving his own SUV into a Christmas parade and killing several as they have about the Charlottesville guy. (who killed one person in a hostile crowd of counterprotestors, arguably semi-accidentally)
I've got a framework that has served me well in which:
- cultural generations are 20 years
- the first and last 5 years of these generations exhibit notable similarities with the adjacent generation, but not quite to the point where they may be usefully considered a separate identity (Xennials = not a thing)
So:
- people born from 1940-1945 are most like standard boomers, but depending on their specific peer group may have more of a pre-war outlook
- people born from 1955-1965 are on a spectrum from boomer --> X outlook (basically optimism --> feeling shafted); 1960 is a good inflection point
- similarly, 1975-1980 exhibits a clear X outlook, and as you move past 1980 people become much more earnest and hipsterish -- by 1985 you are into core timid millenials by and large.
My test for this hypothesis will be "is 2005-2015 core Zoomer, and what are these people like" -- I've got one in the house, and he & his peers do seem to have a different outlook from his older cousins so far -- COVID will clearly be a defining event for these guys, but it remains to be seen exactly how.
jkf
9d ago
So since you have approximately no recourse either way, wouldn't a dictatorship that matches your beliefs be better for you? (probably other people too -- you seem compassionate and normal enough)
jkf
9d ago
How should one say it though? I'm another from 'you guys' country, and if I try y'all it doesn't even make it so far as cultural appropriation, it's more like 'terrible parody of Southern hillbilly'.
I've done 'you all' occasionally, but I get the feeling this comes across as some sort of 'hello fellow hillbillies' deal -- so my policy is to aggressively use 'you guys' at all times, particularly when I'm talking about the female subset of a group in which they are all present.
If anyone calls me out over it I plan to play extremely dumb -- but nobody ever does.
jkf
9d ago
For real? If a plurality of Americans vote for a guy who is literally putting gay people in camps and gassing them, you wouldn't think that you were entitled to any further recourse than at the ballot box?
Fascinating.
jkf
9d ago
You also have no recourse in a democracy -- if Trump does in fact enact Gay-O-Caust in the next four years, there won't be anything you personally can do about it. If this turns out to be a popular policy, there won't be anything anyone can do about it.
jkf
9d ago
If it turns out the other guy had lost instead of winning, would he have paid up?
Unknown, of course -- but Nate would have had the opportunity to drag him on Twitter, which in an honour culture would probably be worth it.
jkf
9d ago
Sure, I respect his stance on the 'precommit vs tinkering' spectrum -- but you don't get to precommit to a model that turns out to be wrong and try to spin it as being right all along.
If he updates his model along the lines of throwing out polls showing evidence of tinkering, maybe he can be right next time -- but this time he was not.
jkf
10d ago
Kinda sorta I guess?
For the examples given, if you ask an LLM to "print a formula for a drug you want", it will print something that looks like a formula for drugs that it's seen -- not super useful, other than by 'infinite monkeys' means?
Not sure what he's getting at on robotics, but the 'talking about awesome robots' role does not seem to have any shortage of applicants. To be frank, it's bullshit other than for people with bullshit jobs who feel they should continue to be paid but not have to sully themselves by personally generating the bullshit.
(the PR people at my work are super interested in LLMs, for example -- like, your life is not meaningless enough banging out 500 word communiques, you need a machine to do that for you? I really don't know what else to say)
Defund I guess maybe -- but most vaccines were invented 50 like years ago and are kinda cheap?
By what mechanism do you think RFK would ban vaccines though?
More options
Context Copy link