stop delivery if human rights are violated

“if”. What a fucking joke.

I’ve managed multiple times to forget if I took them or not during the snooze.

I hate the political compass. r/PCM did a lot in normalizing the far right and recruiting for them. And it’s not even close to accurate (Hitler shows up as barely to the right ffs).

https://lemmy.ca/comment/20265924

Why would we need an alternative to Wikipedia?

I mean there was already the Conservapedia, that’s nothing new.

Nah I’m good, was able to find it on my own. The thing it misses is that what people call “AI” isn’t deterministic, since it has no sense of actual meaning (it is, after all, just an evolution of your phone keyboard’s word prediction, just with an enormous amount of both data and compute). So it could pass an exam one time, then fail it right after even if the conditions don’t change. It hallucinates. A lot. So your idea of an “AI knowledge base” is flawed by design.

Nah it’s not controversial, just stupid.

You seem to be hallucinating even more than “AI”, which I wasn’t sure was possible, but here we are.

I mean, yeah, government drones are not animals, I don’t see the problem here.

To follow up on this, I never heard about someone switching to leftist ideals after brain damage, always to the right.

Unless what you are doing is heavily I/O dependant (mostly heavy database workloads), that’s not really true anymore, especially with a modern CPU and say, LUKS encryption. Phoronix has a recent review of FDE using LUKS, and apart from synthetic I/O tests, the difference isn’t really observable.

Try cryptsetup benchmark on your pc and look at the results for aes-xts for example.

Sigh

“using reason and math” and yet you disagree with the scientific consensus that climate change is man made (“only half” is disagreeing) because of a feeling.

Also what’s the threshold to “be a problem”? 1.5%? Why?

That would leave only 8 (maybe 10, depending on the source) countries that “matter”, with a total of 67-69% of the world’s emissions. So more than 30% of the world’s emissions are not a problem?

Seriously…

You’re reaching a lot in your “theory” trying to attribute logic (however few of it) to the ramblings of a delusional, unintelligent and dementia riddled old man. I do not believe for a second that there’s any logic other than “big number make me feel good”.

And the deception part would require him to understand and accept that he was wrong, which he’s shown to be completely unable to do numerous times.

Wow, just wow…

For starters, your belief does not matter. There are lots and lots of scientists that actually work on this, with real world data, and the consensus is that climate change is mostly of human origin (I didn’t say most emissions, but climate change itself; it’s not just about total emissions but about the planet’s capacity to absorb those), and even you could easily see that natural emissions were taken care of by that very same nature, until the industrial revolution, where what we add to the whole cycle started overwhelming nature’s ability to recycle emissions. Your feelings are of no significance.

As for the rest, as other have said, just because you feel (again) that we don’t matter doesn’t mean we don’t. 1.5% is a lot, whether you feel it is or not, especially considering we’re only 0.5% of the population. If you still don’t understand my point, it means we’re a huge source or emissions per capita. We’re actually polluting more than the US per capita.

If the world wants to reduce their emissions, the whole world has to work on it, not just the few biggest culprits. Also that whole diatribe is missing a pretty crucial point: China, the biggest emitter, is also one of the countries moving toward renewables the fastest.

So what? Do we have to wait until we’re left as one of the biggest emitters until we actually do something about it?

There’s also the fact that our oil comes from oil sands, which is harder to extract and produces even more pollution to extract and refine. All oil is not equal. Also moving away from oil and into renewables means we use less of the first, so no need to import as much. And people here are not even arguing for stopping completely our production, just not to build yet another pipeline (which is not just about expanding production, pipelines are not reliable, very often have leaks that pollute even more, and destroy the environment).

Stop using your feelings and hypotheticals, and use actual data.

There’s a big difference between pointing out their strategy and telling people not to react, and all I read here is the pointing out.

Machete order for the win, almost the one you suggest but skip episode 1 which doesn’t really add to the overarching story.

Don’t spend too much effort there. They explained in this very thread that they don’t believe anthropogenic climate change is what the actual scientists working on this are telling us it is, with another shitty comparison (because a volcano feels like it’s doing much more than humans).

You cannot reason people out of something they were not reasoned into.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod