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

Tartas1995

@Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de

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

Tartas1995 ,

You are learning which is great.

Tartas1995 ,

That is a strange question. If you use any service to consume media, the service has a huge influence on what information you receive. It is a common complaint over media. Using a service which is under control of someone who doesn't have your best interest in mind, is giving power over your media consumption to that actor. Which is bad. That is why you should care about who e.h. owns and controls the Washington Post.

Now, about TikTok... Well think about it.

CEO of Google Says It Has No Solution for Its AI Providing Wildly Incorrect Information (futurism.com)

You know how Google's new feature called AI Overviews is prone to spitting out wildly incorrect answers to search queries? In one instance, AI Overviews told a user to use glue on pizza to make sure the cheese won't slide off (pssst...please don't do this.)...

Tartas1995 ,

I know an easy fix. Just don't do ai.

Tartas1995 ,

You could easily create that meme for the tolerance paradox. Just saying

Tartas1995 ,

Signal is like WhatsApp but you don't even need to share your phone number for it anymore. You can have an username and share that with people.

Tartas1995 ,

Being against, doesn't make you hateful anyway.

I am "against" religion as I think it does more harm than good but I am pro religious freedom for everyone and a peaceful cooperative global society. So I think that makes me hardly hateful towards religions or the believers. Well tbh I have a hard time accepting religious extremist positions in societies, but everything comes with a price... I take religious freedom for everyone if that means someone thinks a book with instructions on how to abort a baby is against abortion and that it should be law.

Tartas1995 ,

Honestly I had too many people insist that Tedx has any value

Tartas1995 ,

Yeah it does and you couldn't really change it. As women would act based on internalized sexism and even if a man wants to respect the wish of a woman and give her 100% control, she would act in the sexist norms, which would signal to the men that women want those sexist norms. So men would continue to "enforce" those norms as women would fear to stop the men.

So sexism can't be solved; and then we can ask why bother trying to change it then?

Stupid line of thinking that is insulting to both, women and men. No means no, my friends. No means no. Respect your fellow humans.

Tartas1995 ,

I didn't exclude them. And I want to make clear that I strongly believe women to be equal to men. Ofc there are men who want to be dominated.

But I was giving a critic to the idea that women wouldn't be able to freely consent due to some vague sense of possible abuse from a man. Because that would imply that e.g. if a man chains himself on a board and give a woman a cat o' nine tails, the woman couldn't freely choose to hit him as the man is still a source of some vague sense of possible abuse in the future as a consequence of her decision. Which isn't completely wrong, of course there are women to are in such a situation, but as a general condition, it heavily implies that women can't consent to anything, even to anything that would less the threat of abuse. Which is simply insulting to women, and invalidating any woman's opinion on these things, especially those who prefer something that it viewed as possibly abusive.

Like take people seriously, and support the creation of supportive structures for those who need them to get out of a situation where leaving is difficult.

Tartas1995 ,

I hope these aren't real. I, and most people here, could probably write these codes top to bottom on paper without an eraser or strikethrough parts because we have it fully solved before the interviewer finished the sentence.

Tartas1995 ,

I think the biggest flaw is the name.

energy would be used by the Linux guys. That energy is probably equal or less than what the turbine produces. That makes it not a perpetual motion machine. It is free energy for the owner though as long as the speakers don't consume too much energy as the Linux guys will come and for free to no cost of the owner

Tartas1995 ,

To be fair, he is racist too!!!

Tartas1995 ,

Honestly I don't remember anything directly antisemitic from him, some of his guests were, if I remember correctly, but not directly from him. Do you happen to know an example of him being openly antisemitic? Not that it matters, he probably is in private.

Tartas1995 ,

The Venn diagram is a circle but the outspoken XYZ Venn diagram is not a circle, some are smart enough to shut the fuck up.

Tartas1995 ,

The argument is quite simple while it carries an assumption.

If you have 3 options, and depending on how you want to frame it, one is outlandish or the other 2 are simplify more similar. You have following issue.

In this example A and B are similar and C is the outlandish one.

Let's say: A has 15 votes, B has 3 and C has 17 votes.

Then C wins while it would be reasonable to assume that B voters would have chosen A over C, as A is more similar to B than C. So now the A and B voters get together and talk about the situation. A voters argue that A had historically far better results than B and B voters should have expected A to get more votes than B, and as B voters prefer A over C, B voters risk that C wins as A is missing the votes from B voters. So while not voting for C, B voters voted in a way that is unlikely to result in B winning, while hurting A winning chances as they didn't vote for A, which results in C requiring less votes to win and could help C in winning

So in other words, if not C, is a shared interest of A and B, voting B is expected to reduce the amount of required votes for C.

If C needs 18 votes and a "not C" voter votes B, A cann't reach 18 anymore, ofc B can reach 18 but historically B never got close, so effectively C requires 1 less additional vote to win, just like when someone would have voted c.

Tartas1995 ,

Math works with assumptions all the time. Math itself is based on assumptions. Logic is based on assumptions.

And I have explained that going from 10/20 to 11/20 or 10/19 is functionally the same as in both cases, the person only needs 9 more. If you don't understand that, I can't help you

Tartas1995 , (edited )

In percentage/fractions, yes. As you asked about absolute numbers, it is a difference of 9 missing votes for both. I am sorry that you don't understand that. No one taught you that, I guess.

But let's say that your ridiculous goal post move is a fair critic, then let's talk about details in the American election system. It is not a popular vote, as the electoral college decides who will be the president and the vote of the elector in the electoral college doesn't have to follow the popular vote held in the state, while some states require them to. How many electors each state has, is based on a system that is a bit too complicated to explain here but you can Google Huntington hill method. But the result of that system is that 1 elector in Wyoming is 193.000 votes but over 700.000 in Texas and California. Which means that a single Wyoming vote is 3 times as valuable as a Texas vote. So in other words, the whole percentage thing is more complicated than just a popular vote. But you didn't actually want to have a conversation about how valuable a vote is (assuming that the elector doesn't ignore your popular vote which they might can) otherwise you would have pointed that out in my response.

And you would have known all of this, if you would actually care about the question and the elections. Like I am not even American, but even I know that little.

Edit: why are you dming me? You asked a public question. Why move into private one now?

Also in case, someone doesn't know how he doesn't understand how voting work and how the whole .05, .02 is moving the goal post, basically if people always case whole votes, so in a normal popular vote, if you need 9 votes, you need 9 votes. There is no practical difference between 0.5 and 0.02 in this case. People cast whole votes. Now in my response, I make clear that Wyoming are more valuable but that is only the case if you treat the system as if it was a popular vote as commonly done, both in these comments and the general public discussion. If you look on the election on a state level which is a totally reasonable thing to do as generally speaking, the statement that he asked you to prove, could have been state between to people from the same state. If you do so, then my point about the value of the vote is irrelevant but then we can talk about votes are a static value and then a vote is always a whole vote and my point about people cast whole votes apply, then we have to realize that if we save he needs 20 votes to win, that technically he doesn't need 20 votes to win but only 19.0000000000001 votes to win but as people cast whole votes, you "can't" get e.g. 19.32 votes. So we say 20. By reducing the required votes to win, we morph the value of a singular vote. Because A and B still needs the 20 votes to win but C only needs 19. So 1/20 is .05 but 1/19 is .052... So now we can take the .052 can create a fraction for it, that would be 1.04/20. Oh look, trump can win with 19.04 now. The difference between 0.05 and .052 is irrelevant for this situation.

Tartas1995 ,

Temu is also shady about your data. So lol, you fucked yourself too.

Tartas1995 , (edited )

TIL, posts that I post publicly and knowingly so, are the same as app that has 2 class-action lawsuits against them related to privacy and just had an event where they bought your likeness from you for 40bucks while advertising it as a "referral program" and the owner of the app had a malware infested App uploaded to the App Stores and with people claiming that their banking account information got leaked through the app.

Thanks! What would I do without the knowledge that you provided to me?

There is a difference between what I like to watch on YouTube and my banking information.

Edit: I forgot to mention that there is a law that forces Chinese companies to grant the Chinese state access to their computer systems. So everything, I said, plus a whole ass government (with more and less corrupt people) has your data!

Tartas1995 ,

Well, I don't wholely disagree but the laws are different and the application of the law is different.

But yeah, distrust is appropriate in both and all other case.

Tartas1995 ,

I know some environmentalists and I have heard that they want to put anything in the museum in that sense. But honestly having a replica might be good for a museum

Tartas1995 ,

Not a criticism of you but a little fun fact about him for others, he has a bunch of friends who "aren't" Nazis but calling themselves or have friends who like to call themselves stuff like "race realist".

Tartas1995 ,

Because it isn't new nor special.

Apps are a Service and services have been and are regulated for decades now and the system have been always arbitrary as fuck.

In the case of TikTok, the west, as a military alliance, should be concerned due to the nature of current valid Chinese laws and the implications of it.

And e.g. facebook has proven that they don't like to stick to rules about how to handle data. In case of TikTok, this could easily have bigger implications for e.g. the American military.

Tartas1995 ,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictions_on_TikTok_in_the_United_States#:~:text=In%20January%202020%2C%20the%20United,platform%20to%20attract%20young%20people.

Well look at that. And no, that isn't enough from a military perspective. Look at the Russian propaganda war in e.g. Germany, that shit can have a negative effect on the defensive abilities of a nation.

Tartas1995 ,

Aren't you misunderstanding my point a little bit? My point isn't that the e.g. us should ban TikTok or that national security is the most important thing ever. My first Point was that there is a national security incentive to ban TikTok in ways that e.g. Facebook doesn't have, but like you expressed obviously there are other consideration to be made. My first Point was just that TikTok is not like Facebook from an us national security pov. Then you spoke from a ban for service members, to which I simply pointed out that there is one to some degree, especially important as there is a ban on private devices in some environments. Deployment can be reason for the ban. In other words, your suggestion is already in place to some degree. My 2nd point about Russian propaganda is also strictly about the fact that "national security" doesn't end at the government employee line and suggesting that is ridiculous.

As you might have realized, I haven't expressed any desire to ban TikTok. That is because I am not in favor of a ban. I am just able to argue a perspective unlike mine own and think it is necessary when people treat Facebook and TikTok the same. Do you think china doesn't care about where their software is coming from? Do you think no one is avoiding e.g. check point firewall due to e.g. gil shwed and his story with unit 8200?

firefly , to Memes
@firefly@neon.nightbulb.net avatar

Government education is the best defense against brain-eating zombies.

@memes

Tartas1995 ,

I love this because it is a stupid take that doesn't remotely understand or is willing to acknowledge any benefits of a standardized Education

Tartas1995 ,

Well my phone capitalized it but interesting read into my autocorrected message on my multi lingual Keyboard settings. Oh look it capitalized keyboard, my new deity.

Maybe don't live in delusions about other people. I am familiar with the Prussian model. I am familiar with the criticism of it too. Presented to me by people educated with the Prussian model. Almost as if human can think for themselves and one shouldn't underestimate their ability to think for themselves.

All of this is especially ironic considering the high number of religious indoctrination facilitating through home schooling.

But please go on. I won't play with you tho.

Tartas1995 ,

Take this as a learning opportunity.

This meme isn't about "thinking for oneself" or even "being critical of information (or the government)", it is saying government education is turning you stupid. Which is stupid, because it is ignorant, "thinking for oneself" isn't stupid, I am doing that with my "government education" and I would wish you would too.

Tartas1995 ,

The argument is basically that it does too much and as the motto of Unix was basically "make it do 1 thing and that very well", systemd goes against that idea.

You might think it is silly because what is the issue with it doing many things. Arguably, it harms customization and adaptability, as you can't run only 2/3 of systemd with 1/3 being replaced with that super specific optimisation for your specific use case. Additional, again arguably, it apparently makes it harder to make it secure as it has a bigger attack surface.

Tartas1995 ,

I understand your point and I want to make clear that my own opinion is not in favor of systemd or against systemd. I am very much neutral. I just expressed my understanding of the arguments. But I welcome the discussion.

Tartas1995 ,

I tried to express my understanding of the arguments. I don't know and I couldn't argue either case to a point that it is worth adding to the conversation

Tartas1995 ,

I have heard that before in a joke setting, I would love to hear genuine arguments for and against it.

Tartas1995 ,

Thanks! I will look into

Tartas1995 ,

It doesn't seem to be a debate. "Microkernels are better" "yes but I don't have the time for it" but thanks

Tartas1995 ,

Following an ideal while being based on free labor is difficult

Tartas1995 ,

Just In case, I wasn't clear, I am just relaying the argument as I understood it

Tartas1995 ,

While I love the meme, Linux is doing pretty good recently

Tartas1995 ,

With the awareness that some people might call me names for saying that... AC4: black flag wasn't even that good of a game in my opinion

Tartas1995 ,

I don't understand the meme, like what it tries to joke about. the motto of the kernel is to not break userspace, right? So I assume the joke is based on that but I don't see the joke.

Tartas1995 ,

Yes but what about this whataboutism? And honestly I am fairly certain it ain't as much as Bitcoin. People usually focus on 1 thing to get it done because moving to the next. I bet you try to do that at work too.

Tartas1995 ,

Which misses the point of my argument.

I don't say you are wrong. But my point is strictly about what people believe and how these beliefs should be quite important and turn "moderation" to "extermism" from their pov.

Tartas1995 ,

You typed so much and understood so little.

I don't think pascal's wager works. Which is why I said, I said he is right about one thing which is the infinites reward fucking up everything. IF!!! there is a god, and he rewards and punishes you like pascal believed, then everything becomes irrelevant compared to it. Failing to follow god would be an extremist action. Unacceptable due to the unmeasurable damage it would cause. Think about it, in an atheistic world, a Terror Attack is bad, like really bad, but the damage is finite. In pascal's world, disbelief has worse consequences. The harm is bigger, to a literally infinite amount. For pascal, your disbelief should be worse than bombing a Christian church while there is a service.

Tartas1995 ,

Could you show me that assumption? I don't see that assumption present in my comment. Please help me to understand your perspective. Thanks.

Tartas1995 ,

How is that related to my comment and how does that answer my request for clarification? I am sorry but this seem completely unrelated.

Tartas1995 ,

So I shouldn't use text written by the author to understand the pov of the author and critic his pov because it is "only" a blog post, noted.

Tartas1995 ,

I am sorry, misunderstanding on my end. It read to me as if you were expressing that I shouldn't be using the blog as source. I had a huge jet lag, idk maybe there is the reason. My bad sorry

Tartas1995 ,

I am thinking then we both understood some and misunderstood some.

My point was, if I want to critic the blog for it's internally odd Argumentation, then obviously it makes sense to use the blog as a source and it is in fact the only valid source for the critic of internally odd Argumentation.

My intention wasn't to use the blog as a source for anything beyond that.

Tartas1995 ,

Fair, thanks for the talk

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