Welcome to Incremental Social! Learn more about this project here!
Check out lemmyverse to find more communities to join from here!

Hacksaw

@Hacksaw@lemmy.ca

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

Hacksaw ,

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/fenton-appeal-1.4397286

Only one cop was punished. His sentence was losing 60 paid vacation days, probably 2 years without vacation at his seniority.

"It is difficult for us to conceive how convictions for the mass arrests, found to be unlawful, of hundreds of individuals in contravention of their Charter rights are not at the more serious end of the spectrum of misconduct."

The panel that sentenced him admits his behaviour was heinous, but gave him such a slap on the wrist.

He argued in court that what he did was fair and it's unreasonable to expect him to have done better.

The people who were arrested and forced to stand outside in the rain without food or water for hours won a 16 million dollar class action settlement and had their records expunged. But it took nearly a decade because the police was trying to weasel out of it. A decade with a wrongful criminal record sets you back more than 16k/person.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/g20-toronto-police-regret-1.5767958

Hacksaw ,

Stores in most developed countries, UK included, can refuse service only for legitimate reasons, and they have to do so uniformly based on fair and unbiased rules. If they don't, they're at risk of an unlawful discrimination suite.

https://www.milnerslaw.co.uk/can-i-choose-my-customers-the-right-to-refuse-service-in-uk-law

She didn't do anything that would be considered a "legitimate reason", and although applied uniformly, it's difficult to prove that an AI model doesn't discriminate against protected groups. Especially with so many studies showing the opposite.

I think she has as much standing as anyone to sue for discrimination. There was no legitimate reason to refuse service, AI models famously discriminate against women and minorities, especially when it comes to "lower class" criminal behavior like shoplifting.

Hacksaw ,

This tree is by a path, so it's better to leave it be.

Other trees can be sustainably harvested and made into whatever our society needs.

Hacksaw ,

Damn that's a lot of people declaring that THEY'RE the ones who speak clearly and THE OTHERS only think they're speaking clearly.

Brains are fairly unique to the individual. When you have an idea, this represents a unique neural activation pattern no one else has.

Being a social species, we often need to communicate these ideas to other people. This means we need to get that unique neural activation pattern into the other person's brain. That's where language comes in.

Language is a massive part of the brain that we work on our entire lives. The entire purpose of language is too make that part of our brain as close to identical as everyone else's. This way we take our idea, convert it into a neural pattern in our language center, transfer that pattern using words and non-verbal communication, then the other person receives it hopefully without massive transmission loss. They're now able to recreate the unique idea you have.

One of the defining features of autism is that the language part of the brain develops very differently in autistic people than neurotypicals. This means that neurotypicals can communicate well together. Autistic people can communicate well together. But communication between autists and NTs will be poor because of that difference.

Many people are arguing about who should change their communication to adapt to others. I don't think this is a useful question because the answer is unique to the individual and is based entirely on need. If you're an NT who needs to communicate to many people with autism, or have someone very close to you with autism, you will likely make an effort to build an autistic language map in your brain. If you're autistic and need to communicate with NTs, you'll likely build an NT language map in your brain. I can see these mapping strategies like using metaphors etc... in this very thread.

Unfortunately since autism is in the minority, there are more people in the latter group than the former. This means the pressure is felt by autistic people more than NTs. This is a natural consequence of the need to communicate in society, not an ethical dilemma. One natural consequence is that autistic people will prefer to have autistic friends to ease their communication burden.

Everyone accepts that there are people that they can't communicate well with. People who speak a different language, people with a different culture, people who have a very different life experience, people whose brassica develop differently. All these groups will have a different language sector of the brain and communication will suffer. It's not efficient for everyone to try to be able to communicate perfectly with everyone else. The goal is to be able to communicate very well with your friends and partners, communicate work concepts with colleagues, communicate basic concepts with most strangers, and avoid unintentionally making enemies with everyone else as best as you can. The onus is on each person to achieve theses goals for themselves.

There isn't really a right or wrong in this situation.

Hacksaw ,

TL;DR: effective communication requires that the language part of the brain of both people map VERY closely. It's no surprise autistic people and NTs don't communicate well together, but communicate very well within their own groups. How much you need to adjust your communication depends mostly on how important it is to get your message across, which if you're a teacher should be a lot. It's your job to communicate effectively lol. Your teacher was shitty!

Honestly I'm mostly replying to the "I'm not reading that but I agree". That made me chuckle. Like I could have had "Aurora_TheFirstLight sucks" in the middle of that and you're all "It's cool I agree lol"

Hacksaw ,

The consequence is the water is shut off. There is no avoiding that.

The neighbour is PAYING for every drop of water that comes out of the hose. Who uses that water isn't up to anyone except the neighbour since he owns the water he paid for.

Any other interpretation of property rights is due to people trying to punish the poor for their poverty.

Hacksaw ,

In an interview with the Journal, Neuralink's first patient, 29-year-old Noland Arbaugh, opened up about the roller-coaster experience. "I was on such a high and then to be brought down that low. It was very, very hard," Arbaugh said. "I cried." He initially asked if Neuralink would perform another surgery to fix or replace the implant, but the company declined, telling him it wanted to wait for more information..

Hacksaw ,

This was a known problem that they didn't fix on the animal models before moving to human trials. They learned nothing. All they did was scrap someone's brain. But I'm sure it's no big deal, he was a cripple right, he should be happy to be part of this /s

Hacksaw ,

Yes, good point. These people are desperate, so we should let a wildly irresponsible company, who during animal testing had identified the thread retraction issue and not fixed it, we should let them experiment on desperate humans because fuck them I guess.

Yeah the guy was able to do something cool for a while, but now he's quickly getting back to where he was and with bonus bits of metal all over his brain and no way to fix the problem.

I don't know if that's a trade he or anyone would have made going in.

They need to stop messing around with this Musk "fail fast" approach, that's not acceptable in medicine. You can't speed up your research by endangering the most desperate people in society.

Hacksaw ,

That's just untrue. There are a lot of options between "give up" and "proceed irresponsibly". After all the animals they've scrapped why are the human subjects having the EXACT SAME PROBLEMS that were identified in the animals. This is Musk's typical "fail fast" strategy to advance research faster, but in the medical field the failures damage real humans.

Completely irresponsible!

The FDA regulatory failure with neuralink is as bad as the FAA's failure with Boeing.

Hacksaw ,

*break people

Hacksaw ,

In an interview with the Journal, Neuralink’s first patient, 29-year-old Noland Arbaugh, opened up about the roller-coaster experience. “I was on such a high and then to be brought down that low. It was very, very hard,” Arbaugh said. “I cried.” He initially asked if Neuralink would perform another surgery to fix or replace the implant, but the company declined, telling him it wanted to wait for more information.

Oh yeah, words of happiness right here! So much QOL, I'm glad you enjoy this.

Hacksaw ,

That's just not how medical research works. Modern medicine isn't built on trying unproven technology on desperate people and using their bodies as a fast track stairway to success. Medical experiments have to ensure human dignity and that doesn't include "he was desperate enough to say yes" as a rationale.

Hacksaw ,

No. I don't think this is a good solution. Companies will put a price on your life and focus on monetary damage reduction. If you're about to cause more property damage than your life is worth (to Mercedes) they'll be incentivized to crash the car and kill you rather than crash into the expensive structure.

Your car should be you property, you should be liable for the damage it causes. The car should prioritise your life over monetary damage. If there is some software problem causing the cars to crash, you need to be able to sue Mercedes through a class action lawsuit to recover your losses.

Hacksaw ,

Nah, I think most people would crash into a tree rather than clear a sidewalk. Cars are designed to protect you in a crash. Pedestrians don't have seatbelts, crash zones, and airbags.

Hacksaw ,

Oh, there are a lot of Tesla/self driving cars fanboys out here. They're caught up in the idea that these corporations will save us from traffic congestion/paying taxes for public transit/car accidents/climate change/car ownership/ you name it and self driving cars will solve it. They don't tend to like it when you try to bring reality to their fantasy.

Self driving cars are a really cool technology. Electric cars as well. However, they don't solve the fundamental problem of transporting a 200lb person using a 3000lb vehicle. So they're at best a partial solution. I also don't really want a future where corporations own more of our stuff and force into monthly payments for heated car seats and "prioritise human life" premium options.

Fanboys gonna fanboy I guess!

Hacksaw ,

Not OP, but if you can't convince a person to kill another person then you shouldn't be able to kill them anyways.

There are points in historical conflicts, from revolutions to wars, when the very people you picked to fight for your side think "are we the baddies" and just stop fighting. This generally leads to less deaths and sometimes a more democratic outcome.

If you can just get a drone to keep killing when any reasonable person would surrender you're empowering authoritarianism and tyranny.

Hacksaw ,

I think we both know that there is no way wars are going to turn out this way. If your country's "proxies" lose, are you just going to accept the winner's claim to authority? Give up on democracy and just live under WHATEVER laws the winner imposes on you? Then if you resist you think the winner will just not send their drones in to suppress the resistance?

Hacksaw ,

I'm generalizing here, but men's lib looks VERY different to women's lib. Women started from a position of very low power, liberation was nearly a continuous improvement for all but the most privileged women.

Men's lib requires first giving up a lot of patriarchal power before gaining the benefits of men's lib, which in my opinion far surpass those of patriarchal power. There are a lot of barriers to this. First, most "online" feminists talk only about giving up patriarchal power. This feels hostile to most men and has bolstered misogynist influencers like tate et al. Second real life men and women are typically both complicit as men in enforcing patriarchal views of what a man is supposed to be. You can see experiences of men crying or expressing real emotion in front their prospective significant others as a prime example of this. Third there is no easy to access popular description of the benefits to men of men's lib. There are great examples, but they aren't as culturally relevant as patriarchal influencers yet.

The path to men's lib is complex and has very different challenges than women's lib. I think we're getting there, but it's certainly a slow process and at this time I think the counter reaction is more prevalent and popular.

Hacksaw ,

"safety isn't a thing we can measure" says a guy who knows nothing about measuring risk and assumes it means no one in the world does either.

Hacksaw ,

One accident per million hours is a direct measurement of safety, not "completely arbitrary". The idea that the threshold in aviation regulations are "arbitrary" because it's not based on a physical law or constant is like saying the temperature we use as "too hot for prolonged contact" is arbitrary. If you exceed it you're likely to get burned, and if you exceed the safety thresholds in aviation regulations you'll be less safe in an airplane than other types of transportation that we as a society find acceptable.

In engineering safety is not "just a feeling".

Your arguments are so absurd I'm certain you're just trolling for a reaction with brain dead comments like this.

Hacksaw , (edited )

First Incidents per hour is not arbitrary. These numbers compare very well to daily activities such as walking, driving, bathing, eating, swimming so that non specialists have a good idea of how much risk an activity carries by comparing it to an activity they're familiar with.

Secondly ISO 26262 produces ASILs as its output which are qualitative, but still based on probably assessments in terms of chance of incidence per hour. The reason for qualitative instead of quantitative assessments of the more general SILs (based on IEC61508, the parent of ISO 26262) is that qualitative is cheaper than quantitative and the automotive industry is full of corner cutting.

Third, aircraft use QUANTITATIVE risk assessments based on ARP476, so risk can be directly measured and mathematicaly compared to any other activity. When people say "flying is safer than driving" it's not arbitrary, it's based on real math. The same math the FAA is using to find safety issues in the Boeing production line.

Fourth

I'm certainly not saying that safety isn't important or that we can't assess it.

Is this you?

safety isn't a thing we can measure.

Hacksaw ,

Veni, vidi.... veni

Hacksaw ,

Tell me you've never developed commercial security software without telling me. "If it works a few thousand times without collisions it should be reliable enough". That's not even good enough for tamper proof seals on medication and yogurt jars let alone applications that require the sender and recipient to use a dedicated tetrahertz scanner to validate.

.... Damn AI fanboys smh

Hacksaw ,

Yeah, it's strength, flight, maybe poison breath all in one and you can go back to human anytime. Dragon has literally no downsides!

Hacksaw ,

Absolute garbage comment. Our entire LIVES and upbringing is assimilation of thoughts and ideas. We literally have sayings like "imitation is the most sincere form of flattery".

Capitalism comes in and decides that ideas, in and of themselves, need to be monetized and commodified. We create parents and trademarks and copyrights, all flying in the face of millennia of human cultural evolution. Using this, we decide that copying is stealing. Absolute insanity. Stealing is wrong because it DEPRIVES someone of the use of their property. Copying doesn't deprive anyone from shit!

We have a system where if someone finds a good way of doing something, but doesn't play nice with others, we DEMAND other people to use INFERIOR ways of doing that thing so we don't make the original inventor mad. This might, maybe, make sense with people, but corporations own just about every useful patent we've ever made, corporations aren't people, we don't owe them shit. ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS! IDEAS ARE NOT PROPERTY! IMITATION ISN'T STEALING! How did we even get here?

Paris votes to crack down on SUVs | Non-Parisians will be charged almost $20 per hour to park large gas or hybrid vehicles within the city center in a bid to address pedestrian safety and air pollu... (www.theverge.com)

Paris votes to crack down on SUVs | Non-Parisians will be charged almost $20 per hour to park large gas or hybrid vehicles within the city center in a bid to address pedestrian safety and air pollu...::Parisians have voted to increase parking charges for out-of-town SUV drivers as part of the city’s efforts to address road...

Hacksaw ,

Yeah, you're guilty. A HEAVIER vehicle pollutes the city more, a LARGE vehicle creates a bigger hazard for smaller vehicles, cyclists, and pedestrians than someone in a smaller car, and a WIDE vehicle creates a hazard when you park in an already narrow road.

Like, I get that you're trolling, but if you seriously don't understand why large vehicles harm the inhabitants of cities, especially old, dense cities, then I can't help you.

Hacksaw ,

Housing can't be an investment (i.e. exponential growth above inflation) AND an affordable place for people to live for future generations. This mentality is absolutely brain-dead.

Hacksaw ,

No. It's still 50-50. Observing doesn't change probabilities (except maybe in quantum lol). This isn't like the Monty Hall where you make a choice.

The problem is that you stopped your probably tree too early. There is the chance that the first kid is a boy, the chance the second kid is a boy, AND the chance that the first kid answered the door. Here is the full tree, the gender of the first kid, the gender of the second and which child opened the door, last we see if your observation (boy at the door) excludes that scenario.

1 2 D E

B B 1 N

B G 1 N

G B 1 Y

G G 1 Y

B B 2 N

B G 2 Y

G B 2 N

G G 2 Y

You can see that of the scenarios that are not excluded there are two where the other child is a boy and two there the other child is a girl. 50-50. Observing doesn't affect probabilities of events because your have to include the odds that you observe what you observed.

Hacksaw ,

That's a great idea let me know how it turns out. If you randomly pick the genders and randomly pick who opens the door, I think it will be 50-50. With these kinds of things they can get pretty tricky. Just because an explanation seems to make sense doesn't mean it's right so I'm curious!

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • incremental_games
  • meta
  • All magazines
    •