Nevoic

Nevoic , 1 month ago

Any chance you have an nvidia card? Nvidia for a long time has been in a worse spot on Linux than AMD, which interestingly is the inverse of Windows. A lot of AMD users complain of driver issues on Windows and swap to Nvidia as a result, and the exact opposite happens on Linux.

Nvidia is getting much better on Linux though, and Wayland+explicit sync is coming down the pipeline. With NVK in a couple years it's quite possible that nvidia/amd Linux experience will be very similar.

Nevoic , 1 month ago

18 months ago, chatgpt didn't exist. GPT3.5 wasn't publicly available.

At that same point 18 months ago, iPhone 14 was available. Now we have the iPhone 15.

People are used to LLMs/AI developing much faster, but you really have to keep in perspective how different this tech was 18 months ago. Comparing LLM and smartphone plateaus is just silly at the moment.

Yes they've been refining the GPT4 model for about a year now, but we've also got major competitors in the space that didn't exist 12 months ago. We got multimodality that didn't exist 12 months ago. Sora is mind bogglingly realistic; didn't exist 12 months ago.

GPT5 is just a few months away. If 4->5 is anything like 3->4, my career as a programmer will be over in the next 5 years. GPT4 already consistently outperforms college students that I help, and can often match junior developers in terms of reliability (though with far more confidence, which is problematic obviously). I don't think people realize how big of a deal that is.

Nevoic , 1 month ago

"they can't learn anything" is too reductive. Try feeding GPT4 a language specification for a language that didn't exist at the time of its training, and then tell it to program in that language given a library that you give it.

It won't do well, but neither would a junior developer in raw vim/nano without compiler/linter feedback. It will roughly construct something that looks like that new language you fed it that it wasn't trained on. This is something that in theory LLMs can do well, so GPT5/6/etc. will do better, perhaps as well as any professional human programmer.

Their context windows have increased many times over. We're no longer operating in the 4/8k range, but instead 128k->1024k range. That's enough context to, from the perspective of an observer, learn an entirely new language, framework, and then write something almost usable in it. And 2024 isn't the end for context window size.

With the right tools (e.g input compiler errors and have the LLM reflect on how to fix said compiler errors), you'd get even more reliability, with just modern day LLMs. Get something more reliable, and effectively it'll do what we can do by learning.

So much work in programming isn't novel. You're not making something really new, but instead piecing together work other people did. Even when you make an entirely new library, it's using a language someone else wrote, libraries other people wrote, in an editor someone else wrote, on an O.S someone else wrote. We're all standing on the shoulders of giants.

Nevoic , 2 months ago

What's the cat abuse situation over there? Is it worse than our pig/cow/chicken abuse situation?

Nevoic , 2 months ago

825,000 chickens per year in the U.S are accidentally boiled alive or drowned before their intended slaughter. https://animalclock.org/ this isn't prevented because prevention mechanisms cost money, as in they eat into profits.

It's standard practice for male pigs to have their tails and testicles ripped out without pain relief https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23817808/pig-farm-investigation-feedback-immunity-feces-intestines this link also showcases how people abuse pigs for fun. Objectifying animals you kill is a coping mechanism for humans, engaging in that much killing is unnatural and unhealthy for humans, it also leads to vastly higher rates of domestic violence and crime, as it normalizes violence as a solution.

It's normal for foxes to have their skin ripped off while they're alive. Animals have their beaks ripped off so they can't kill each other in distress, as they go literally insane, abandon normal social hierarchies, and start simply trying to kill each other given the lack of space. http://www.nationearth.com/

I understand ignorance of how horrible the conditions are is a normal part of how humans justify our atrocities. However what always baffles me is people who appear genuinely concerned about animal welfare can be so absurdly uninformed on the practices that they directly support with their purchases, while criticizing practices that you have absolutely no influence over in a place on the other side of the planet.

Nevoic , 2 months ago

Like sure fuck Elon, but why do you think FSD is unsafe? They publish the accident rate, it's lower than the national average.

There are times where it will fuck up, I've experienced this. However there are times where it sees something I physically can't because of either blindspots or pillars in the car.

Having the car drive and you intervene is statistically safer than the national average. You could argue the inverse is better (you drive and the car intervenes), but I'd argue that system would be far worse, as you'd be relinquishing final say to the computer and we don't have a legal system setup for that, regardless of how good the software is (e.g you're still responsible as the driver).

You can call it a marketing term, but in reality it can and does successfully drive point to point with no interventions normally. The places it does fuckup are consistent fuckups (e.g bad road markings that convey the wrong thing, and you only know because you've been on that road thousands of times). It's not human, but it's far more consistent than a human, in both the ways it succeeds and fails. If you learn these patterns you can spend more time paying attention to what other drivers are doing and novel things that might be dangerous (people, animals, etc ) and less time on trivial things like mechanically staying inside of two lines or adjusting your speed. Looking in your blindspot or to the side isn't nearly as dangerous for example, so you can get more information.

Nevoic , 2 months ago

Depends on what you're looking for. I had a high paying tech job (layoffs op), and I wanted a fun car that accelerates fast but also is a good daily driver. I was in the ~60k price range, so I was looking at things like the Corvette Stingray, but there are too many compromises for that car in terms of daily driving.

The Model 3 accelerates faster 0-30, and the same speed 0-60. Off the line it feels way snappier and responsive because it's electric, and the battery makes its center of gravity lower, so it's remarkably good at cornering for a sedan, being more comparable to a sports car in terms of cornering capabilities than a sedan.

Those aren't normally considerations for people trying to find a good value commuter car, so you would literally just ignore all those advantages. Yet people don't criticize Corvette owners for not choosing a Hyundai lol

On the daily driving front, Tesla wins out massively over other high performance cars in that price range. Being able to charge up at home, never going to a gas station, best in class driving automation/assistance software, simple interior with good control panel software, one pedal driving with regen breaking.

If you're in the 40k price range for a daily commuter, your criteria will be totally different, and I am not well versed enough in the normal considerations of that price tier and category to speak confidently to what's the best value. Tesla does however, at the very least, have a niche in the high performance sedan market.

Nevoic , 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

This speaks more to a broader societal problem than people want to admit.

There's this perspective that unions in the 19th-20th century were viewed as terrorist organizations because the state/capitalist regimes of the world were incorrect in their assessment of unions, and they wisened up to their benefits for the common person, giving them state backing and "proper" channels to interface with capitalists. This isn't accurate.

States and capitalists well understood what unions fought for and provided, and it was antithetical to the goals of capitalism. Labor is a commodity to be bought and sold, and as division of labor+automation increased, so too did market saturation, bringing down the cost of labor while simultaneously allowing each worker to provide more value to society (and more importantly, money for capitalists).

Sidebar: this is one of the primary contradictions of capitalism, workers can be provided tools to perform better, but those same performance improvements/output increases actually deteriorate conditions for workers. This is because the goal isn't to better the lives of humans, it's to allow capitalists to effectively allocate capital to produce more capital.

Anyway, states and capitalists (correctly) saw unions as an effective tool for fighting back against these tendencies of capitalism. Workers are the backbone of society, when they collectively demand something it must be brought to fruition or the system stops. Allowing workers to inflict this kind of terror upon capitalists is obviously a form of terrorism from a state/capitalist perspective, they could demand anything and capitalists wouldn't have the tools to fight back.

The problem with this designation though is it makes unions and union members martyrs. They're fighting for the good of the common man, against evil corporations. This encourages people to join the cause and fight in solidarity against capitalism. Class consciousness around this time was insanely high, and despite the attempted violent suppression of these union terrorist organizations, they were growing and demanding more as time went on.

So the state had to intervene here. The interests of the capitalists were not being adequately cared for in these negotiations. So the state decided it would handle the management of unions, use propaganda to convince workers that the state has grown/learn and wants to help workers, but must also obviously balance the interests of the workers with the interests of capitalists (the liberal framing is usually towards "small business/entrepreneur" to make this more palpable).

In the end, you end up with the co-opting of what it really means to be a union. Workers lost the language to describe those organizations that we had that demanded everything we wanted without the regulation and mediation of the state. Those organizations didn't need to worry about or concede demands of the capitalists so long as the workers had resources. Those organizations couldn't be shutdown by "pro-union" presidents/prime ministers and forced to not strike or end strikes early before demands were met.

Those organizations were called unions, but they don't exist anymore. Instead we have state-"backed" unions, that balance the interests of capitalists and workers, because demands like seeing the full fruits of our labor, full access to shelter unrestricted by land leeches, healthcare (in the case of America and some other less fortunate countries) seeing automation reduce working hours, etc. are all far too radical for a capitalist "democracy".

Nevoic , 3 months ago

Yes but in different ways depending on the country. The U.S has a pretty clear analogue, the Native American genocide.

The main difference between Israel/Palestine and the U.S/Native Americans is the former is happening currently, the U.S has already successfully completed the genocide on their natives, while Israel is in the middle of its extermination.

Germany also clearly has the Jewish Holocaust, but they weren't successful in WW2, so that genocide didn't get white-washed and instead was shamed to paint a clear good guy/bad guy narrative, despite the Nazis open praise of the U.S for our successful extermination of the natives, U.S business interests aligning with Nazis before and during the war, and the U.S trying to stay neutral between the Allies and Axis powers until Japan forced the U.S into action.

Nevoic , 3 months ago

This is the natural order, yet paraplegics live, why? Because we live in a society that attempts to circumvent the natural order in many ways, for the good of all.

You should take a broader materialistic look on society, who does the work (the working class), who benefits from the work (the owner class), and instead of focusing on amping up people to devote their lives to serve the interests of capital, instead focus to reframe the goals of society to serve the interests of workers, which includes working less, or even not at all. Work is not labor.

Nevoic , 3 months ago

Socialists use work and labor to describe different things. Work is the set of actions a worker is coerced to participate in by capitalists to align with the interests of capital. Labor can be something you engage in as part of work, but that's not always the case. Sometimes people have jobs that are so inefficient or bullshit that they literally don't labor at all at work (read Bullshit Jobs).

Labor is necessary (currently), work is not. Aligning with the interests of capital is not synonymous with the interests of humanity (think ad work, literally encouraging greater consumption, especially around harmful products like tobacco/alcohol/sugar. Most western countries now have bans on tobacco advertising, but still let advertising in general flourish).

On the topic of feeding everyone, it would be very logistically difficult in the 1600s no doubt. Now we have a massive international trade system, I can easily get massive amounts of goods shipped from the other side of the world in weeks or maybe months at the worst. We also produce enough food currently to feed 12 billion people, and that's with our incredibly inefficient system of converting edible plant matter (mostly soy) to animals.

The issue is, under capitalism, poor people don't deserve to eat. If they lack money, they're better off dead than alive and consuming resources without paying for them, so that's what the global international capitalist system does, it moves more than enough food great enough distances to feed everyone as it is. It just moves it to the rich countries where obesity has been a massive issue instead of the global south, because people in rich countries have the money to pay for food, and so they deserve to live (and overeat/waste food) but people born in Africa deserve death.

Capitalists often lose sight of what an economy is for. An economy isn't something of value in and of itself, it's about setting up incentives and systems to benefit humanity. Capitalism fails to do this in everyway that is uniquely capitalist. Anything it does right is attributed to the general functioning of markets, which existed before capitalism and can exist after capitalism (market socialism is a real thing). There are problems with markets no doubt, but capitalism really has no redeeming qualities when compared to market socialism. If you compare it to feudalism, it does do better at mobilizing productive forces, of course at the massive detriment to workers.

Nevoic , 3 months ago

Are you unaware of how markets work? You're pretending like the person you're responding to is the arbiter of all food production and consumption. Buy vegan, more vegan food gets made. It's been happening for decades and as the number of vegans climb, the amount of vegan food increases.

There's really nothing difficult to understand about that. If SO MANY PEOPLE go vegan that you literally go to the store and can't find ANY vegan food (this won't happen), then vegan food production will ramp up extremely fast, and this will only be a temporary issue as producers acclimate to new demands.

Nevoic , 3 months ago

Meat is becoming political whether you like it or not. This is how politics have historically worked, people aren't born conservative, they're born, things are normalized and go unquestioned until you're older and society changes enough.

In Europe there are (left-leaning) political parties entirely devoted to the cause of eliminating the animal holocaust.

People who are "left-leaning" in America say in 2010 as a 25 year old will be considered conservative in America in 2050 as a 65 year old, without their politics changing at all. They'll be pro-Israel, pro animal abuse, pro-capitalism, and complaining how "leftists have gone off the deep end" being against animal abuse, worker abuse, and Palestinian genocide.

Nevoic , 3 months ago

Holocaust was a word before the Jewish holocaust you twat. Yes, you support animal abuse in the only way that matters, financially. You're the same as people who pay to watch dogs fight or animal rapists.

What is happening to animals is definitionally a holocaust, it has nothing to do with the Jewish one.

Congrats on being a moderate lib, it shows. Have fun eating the tortured animal carcass, hope it makes you feel better. I'll go have some plants because I don't need to abuse animals to feel better about myself like fuckwit carnists.

Nevoic , 3 months ago

To continue on this, the spoiler effect is a shorterm strategic problem, not necessarily a long term one.

There absolutely is a strategic difference between

• 52% Republican

• 48% Democrat

and

• 47% Republican

• 43% Democrat

• 10% Green

The former tells Democrats their only option is to move right to resecure some Republican voters. The latter tells Democrats that they have the ability to also resecure votes from the left by making concessions that to Green Party politics.

People who say these two situations are literally identical are being disingenuous or ignorant. Even if the same number of Democrats/Republicans voted in both, and the only difference is people who didn't vote instead voted green, this results in actual differences in signals and potential future policies.

tldr: voting third party is not identical to not voting, even strategically.

Nevoic , 3 months ago

If the Democrats have any self-interest in holding power, they'll actually try strategies to regain power. If they lose in 2024 by a percentage that is covered by the green party, they could conclude it's easier to go left and get Green members rather than pull people from the Trump cult. I'd agree with these future Democrats, I think you'd have very, very little success pulling people from the Trump cult.

Especially if the people who voted green in 2024 have previously voted Democrat, it showcases that these people are willing to go Democrat if certain material concessions are made.

Nevoic , 3 months ago

we have to take Trump at his word

No we don't, I've never done this and I'm not going to start now. He's already tried and failed to seize power as a sitting president. He's proven he's too incompetent to become a fascist dictator.

I won't go as far to say as it's literally impossible, but the fact that so many liberals now believe in Trump's ability to overthrow the government just as much as his own supporters is baffling. He's not a reliable source of information. He's not intelligent, and he's not capable. He's an old, pathetic moron that is on the verge of dying due to age, not some capable fascist mastermind.