• 2 Posts
  • 158 Comments
Joined 8 months ago
cake
Cake day: January 25th, 2024

help-circle

  • Our voting system fundamentally doesn’t allow for third parties to win the vote.

    Even if we said “vote for a third party, there’s a statistically significant chance they might win!” this wouldn’t fix the issue, because Jill Stein doesn’t take votes from both sides equally.

    Jill Stein leans left, which means people who are otherwise Democrat voters are going to be the largest demographic voting for her.

    Our voting system is first past the post, which means this will actually decrease the chance of a left-leaning victory.

    Let’s say Dems get 55% of the vote without Jill Stein, and Reps get 45%. Democrats win.

    Then, we add in Jill Stein. A significant amount of voters switch over, even some Republicans. (which, in reality, would probably not at all, because Jill Stein’s policies are even further from their beliefs than even the Democrats are)

    Dems get 35% of the vote. Reps get 40% of the vote. Jill Stein gets 25%. Democrats & Jill Stein lose, Republicans win.

    If Jill Stein were entirely impartial, and took votes equally from each side, then we could have a vote like…

    Dems get 45% of the vote. Reps get 35% of the vote. Jill Stein gets 20% of the vote. Democrats win in the same way they would have whether or not there was a third party.

    The issue is that, obviously, Jill Stein isn’t taking equal parts of the vote, so this inevitably just reduces votes for Democrats, without reducing votes for Republicans.

    It’s not an ideal system, (which is why we should advocate for Instant-Runoff or Rated voting) but it’s the option that will lead to the most left-leaning outcome, as opposed to a heavily fascist one.


  • It’s a bit more nuanced than that, because a human can still develop artistic skills by observing non-artistic creations beforehand.

    For instance, the world’s very first artist probably didn’t have any paintings or sculptures to build off.

    I’m not saying I necessarily agree that the person isn’t an artist because they rely on external training data, but generative AI models most certainly need to observe other works to ‘learn’ how to make art, whereas humans don’t necessarily have to. (Although if someone were to make a reinforcement learning model based on user feedback as a way to entirely generate better and better images starting from random variation, that would make the original training data point moot)


  • ArchRecord@lemm.eetoComic Strips@lemmy.worldAds
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

    Just keep in mind the possible cons of using AdNauseam.

    With traditional adblockers like uBO, the ad content never gets loaded. With AdNauseam, it does, it’s just not shown to you.

    That means the ad network is likely to get:

    • Your IP
    • Your Browser Header
    • Possibly the site you’re on

    And it also makes you heavily identifiable, because to any ad server, a single user mass-clicking their advertisements by the thousands is going to make you very easy to track across sites, just by behavior alone.

    So while it’s good if you just want no ads and to do a little monetary harm to surveillance advertising, it’s not good if you want privacy. (Unless you set it to show ads, but still click on all of them, and you’re the type that does sometimes click on ads, then it does become good for obfuscation)

    I’d definitely recommend the same team’s other work: TrackMeNot, as it does a decent job of obfuscating your search queries. (Just make sure that if you use a privacy-focused search engine like DuckDuckGo, you disable any auto-searching on Google, since that just gives them your IP, without obfuscating the searches you aren’t making there anyways)




  • At least from my past experience observing the media sphere and demographics regarding crypto, it tends to just be newbies that are investing primarily due to the seeking of gains, but not for any sort of ideological reason, as opposed to the people who initially invested in crypto for its other freedom-preserving qualities.

    For instance, I had originally mined some Bitcoin years and years ago when I initially just thought the concept of a stateless, distributed-control monetary unit was an interesting concept. I held that bitcoin in a non-custodial (i.e. not on an exchange/company) wallet, because I believed in the actual values prescribed to Bitcoin at the time.

    Later, when my father wanted to try investing in crypto because he also thought it was interesting, he invested through an exchange, but refused to withdraw his money because he wasn’t that interested. It was just general intrigue, but not enough to overcome his apathy.

    In the Mt Gox days, it was just so early, and Bitcoin was generally so new as a concept, that people didn’t understand the point of self-custody as much. With FTX, it was the masses who downloaded their app simply because they saw it during the Super Bowl and wanted to give it a shot as an investment vehicle, but not because they had any clue what the original values were underpinning the technology.

    The people putting their money in the hands of these companies never cared about the ideological reasons for holding crypto (which I believe have now been totally overtaken by greed and wealthy VC firms), they just wanted to see if they could be the next person to get rich.

    In my eyes, that’s an ideology problem, not a problem with the technology, but I do see how we could very well disagree on this.




  • Which is why both sides have the right to protest, criticize, and argue over their respective viewpoints.

    If we attempt to ban certain forms of speech that don’t, say, immediately incite violence, then what we end up doing is allowing the intolerant people to force society to become intolerant by censoring opposing viewpoints, as long as they’re given any degree of control over the legislative process around what speech is allowed.

    We have freedom of speech, but not mandated respect for the beliefs you say with that speech. While they’re free to say it, everyone is free to say anything they wish against it, to not listen to it, and to drown it out.

    Society can already be intolerant of the intolerance without opening the door to legislation that could mandate intolerance of tolerant speech. We don’t have to legislate intolerant speech away to counter its usage.



  • I think the key point in the post was “If ‘unrealized gains’ can buy stuff-then they’re realized. Tax them.”

    Essentially, because the unrealized gains held in their stocks could be realized through a loan, all of their capital gains should be considered for taxation.

    As opposed to just the assets used as collateral, that is now effectively liquid, should be taxed as realized.

    I personally think we should do everything we can to disincentivize wealth hoarding, even if it’s an “unfair” or possibly somewhat broken system that does so, but it also doesn’t seem feasible as a kind of legislation you could convince anyone in the government to enact, since they’ll still be focusing on things like if it could possibly lead to a higher loss than the initial investment if they’re taxed on the gains for years, but it drops low enough to wipe out all the value they paid in tax and their gains, even if the actual price is higher than the purchase price.





  • ArchRecord@lemm.eetoMicroblog Memes@lemmy.world"Freeloaders"
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    12 days ago

    Undocumented immigrants can’t file income tax, because they are undocumented. However, they also can’t utilize the majority of our costly social services, because they, obviously, don’t have documentation. They can’t sign up for welfare programs, utilize police resources for fear of being deported, etc.

    Overall though, they are also human. They produce similar economic demand to Americans. They pay sales tax. Their landlord pays tax on their rent. They are also often paid less than Americans because they have no ability to enforce the law through legal means (again, for fear of being deported), but still have to buy things like food, which is taxed.

    Thus, they tend to, at a bare minimum, take roughly about what they put in, leaving a mostly neutral effect on the economy.

    Immigration is generally regarded to boost innovation overall, lead to higher education rates within the workforce, and creates higher overall economic productivity., which is an effect on the economy that isn’t just taxes in, taxes out.

    Of course, the best option we have is to grant them amnesty, because that then means they can file & pay income taxes, can more easily be statistically measured and analyzed as a group, and can engage in class solidarity through union organization, which raises working conditions and wages for all workers.




  • This is kind of just a bad argument.

    Nobody is arguing that an abortion can save a woman from all consequences.

    Nobody is arguing that death is impossible as a result of abortion.

    But when somebody dies because something prevented them from getting a procedure that would have been highly likely to save them, that doesn’t come into conflict with the possibility of death from the procedure. It’s a matter of personal choice.

    Especially considering the maternal mortality rate (# of deaths per 100,000 live births) is 17.4, while the case fatality rate for abortions (# of deaths per 100,000 legal induced abortions) is just 0.45

    Now imagine how much higher that rate gets when abortions are performed illegally because legislation like this stops safe abortions from being possible, without curbing demand.

    Yes, people die from abortions. Yes, people die from pregnancy. Yes, this woman could have died from the abortion procedure even if she was able to get it.

    But her chance of death was significantly lower if she had been capable of getting an abortion, which she was not.


  • Wait, it’ll actually let you use local LLMs?

    That would legitimately help me out. I use LLMs a lot for simple data restructuring, or rewording of explanations when I’m reading through certain sources. I was worried they would just do a simple ChatGPT API integration and have that be the end of it, but maybe this will end up being something I’d actually use.