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

deaf_fish

@deaf_fish@lemm.ee

An Embedded Software Engineer who does game dev as a hobby.

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

deaf_fish ,

Do you ever feel like we will be the last generation to know anything?

deaf_fish ,

How is this an obvious shit post? I am here to learn.

deaf_fish ,

Ok, your not the original person. Is this an obvious shit post in your opinion?

Because if it isn't obvious how am I supposed to know this is a shit post or not?

deaf_fish ,

I have used LLMs before and they are occasionally wrong, seems like you don't disagree. I don't see how someone who isn't deeply familiar with LLMs would be obviously tipped off that this post is a shit post. As for the graphs, who knows, Google probably already has that working. I've seen LLMs make up songs before too.

AI would never write this.

Why not? I figure you could train an AI to write this. I could see a Google engineer messing up and producing a bad AI. GPT2 engineers has made this mistake before.

The fact that you are believing it doesn’t speak to the danger of AI as much as it speaks to the gullibility of people.

This is kind of like saying "the problem with nuclear bombs is that people are too easy to evaporate at high temperatures, not the bombs themselves". Yeah, that is true, but it's really hard to make people less gullible. I wouldn't say LLM's and AI are bad or we should stop using them. But I think people like you need to understand that the average person is not on your level, and you need to slow your roll.

If I said “obama made a law to put babies in woodchippers”....

I don't think this is a good comparison, because Obama has been around for a while and most people believe Obama wouldn't do that. Now if Obama went from being a nobody to president in a day and then someone told me the about the woodchipper law. I would be unsure and have to double check. It wouldn't be obvious. Likewise, since LLMs are relatively new to most people, it's going to take a while before most people figure out what is a normal mistake by an LLM vs an obviously faked mistake by a shit poster.

deaf_fish ,

As someone who doesn't pay close attention to what Google does at the top of the page, this is not obvious to me. Glad it is a shit post and not something Google actually responded with.

deaf_fish ,

A broken clock is right twice a day?

deaf_fish ,

No, not everyone that disagrees with me is a secret agent. A good chunk of them are. The rest are the idiots that believe and agree with them.

I'm still waiting for a good argument about how no voting or voting 3rd party gets better outcomes.

Maybe I'm the idiot for thinking there might be a good argument for it. Who knows?

deaf_fish ,

Voting is a negotiation? Since when? Voting is a privilege that the ruling class can take away from us at any time if they think they can get away with it. Something kind of like what Trump did after the last election. I remember Jan 6th.

It's always been a choice between a shit cupcake and a poop cookie. The best thing you can do is minimize damages so you can keep trying to organize for 4 more years or at the very least, stay out of the camps.

Also, if you don't vote or vote 3rd party, they don't have to think or care about you anymore. Your not a vote they need to get, because your throwing your vote away. Its basic first past the post voting strategy. I don't like first past the post for this reason.

If you are bot, "foreign spy", or whatever, your post was good at muddying the water, keep it up, your master will be pleased. If your not, this argument was bad and unconvincing try again. Not even conservative voters are dumb enough to vote 3rd party.

deaf_fish ,

And if you always vote for them no matter what they do, then they don’t have to think or care about you anymore, because they know you’ll vote for them regardless.

You got it! That is the shit system in the US.

Oh thank you, I actually am a foreign spy. Do you think you could rate me 5 stars? I really need this job.

Lol, good sense of humor.

I sympathize, it gets depressing. That is why, I don't blame anyone from no voting or 3rd party voting. I just wish people would do that without justifying it. Not make it out to be this big brained strategy. There are a lot of good meaning ignorant people who will read that stuff and think they are materially improving things by no voting or 3rd party voting. The progressive fight is super hard and a pain in the butt. If you need a rest King/Queen, take it.

The only real way to get change to happen is getting enough people educated and organized to turn the democrat or republican candidate into a 3rd party candidate by numbers, that is the only way they suffer. Until then we have to play their stupid game.

deaf_fish ,

What do you mean? A lot of people are doing that. It's not like we get one progressive action every 4 years. Why do you think people organize and run for local government? Why do you think I am trying to spread leftist ideas on the internet? Even people who run as a 3rd party candidate are helping by spreading ideas. Bernie didn't make it to the finish line, but in trying he did a lot of good work spreading ideas and making people think.

If we wake up enough people, the gears in the machine will start turning and we won't need to vote 3rd party because we won't be 3rd party by definition anymore.

deaf_fish ,

I mean voting 3rd part or no-voting. If you want to do that, it is your right. The outcome of doing that is going against your interests. So, you don't really have a political strategy argument for doing it.

I have found a few people that just didn't want to feel bad about voting 3rd party. And that is fine, you don't have feel bad. You can vote how you want. But they felt like they need to create a reason for why they are voting 3rd party or no voting. This is what I think is harming the community. Creating the reason or justifying it when there was no rationality backing it and spreading it like it is a good reason is what irks me. It's spreading misinformation.

deaf_fish ,

Ok, I think I understand the confusion. Running for a 3rd party and voting 3rd party are two different things.

I think that running for a 3rd party has good outcomes, it generates news and discussion and gets your ideas out in front of a lot of people. Maybe, when the time is right, you won't be a 3rd party anymore and become one of the mainstream parties.

I think that voting for a 3rd party has bad outcomes. As our previous discussions, thanks to the dumb first past the post. Only the two most popular candidates matter. So you should vote for the lesser evil even if they suck (and they will).

When a 3rd party candidate becomes popular enough they edge out one of the standard party candidates and the voting strategy changes in our favor.

deaf_fish ,

Running as a third party candidate means doing a political project in which you’re trying to attract supporters to vote for you.

This has always been a stretch goal of any 3rd party candidate, because it almost never ever happens. You run 3rd party to tank the votes of one of the primary candidates, for a book deal, or to spread information and awareness.

If no one voted for a third party, that party would lose relevance and wouldn’t be able to accomplish the goal of spreading ideas like you mentioned earlier.

The strategy is to gracefully step down after you have spread information and before any of the voting happens. You can support a 3rd party candidate and plan to not vote for them unless they get popular.

How can we tell when we’ve reached that point

We won't be able to tell the instant it happens, because it's impossible to track all the voters, but signs will start showing up.

You know we are past the point when the democrat or republican candidate starts getting ignored like 3rd party candidates currently do. Remember how Bernie's run looked? Before the Dems did an op and kicked him out, it was looking very interesting.

For all we know, that could be the situation right now.

Maybe, keep your eye on the polls. If your 3rd party candidate has comparable polling to Biden or Trump then we can start talking about the possibility of that happening. We have to overcome the normies.

By all appearances, it would seem that the third party has no meaningful support, even if the majority supported it,

Disagree, like I said, you can support a 3rd party candidate without planning on voting for them. Everyone knows you have to eat shit on voting day, but before then, you can point out all the good things about a particular candidate, even if you know they are not going to win.

People can’t just all spontaneously decide together to switch, unless you have some means of coordinating it.

Yes, this is why it may happen an election or two after we get critical mass. It's a limitation of the tools we have.

Remember if the 3rd party candidate has the support, they are no longer a 3rd party. People can say they are 3rd party, but they would be wrong or coping.

deaf_fish ,

There’s no reason this wouldn’t continue indefinitely.

Wait, what? Why would it continue indefinitely? Lets say we had a Green Party with polling showing 90% of the population interested in that party. In what reason would you not vote for the Green Party (Assuming they are aligned with your goals)? Even if the polls are off we still have an extremely good chance of winning.

vote thresholds are necessary to be recognized as a major party and receive things like federal campaign funding and a spot in televised debates.

You don't technically need money to win an election, it helps, but all that matters is the votes. If you don't debate a popular candidate, your opponent can call you a coward. No one wants to debate anyone, it's just better optics to engage.

If your position is that you should support a third party up until it comes time to vote, then where is that support?

Ohhh, maybe you got me, I haven't been paying much attention to the 3rd party polling. Any progressive 3rd party candidates coming close to Biden or Trump? If they are, then you win, and let me know.

Also, let me just say, if it is not too late, that I support all candidates that agree with me. Have any candidates in particular you want me to verify?

deaf_fish ,

When polls ask people who they intend to vote for, they would tell them that they intend to vote for the Democrats, because they consider the Greens nonviable.

Sounds like we need to organize more to get better information. Also, what is this I found? https://news.gallup.com/poll/512135/support-third-political-party.aspx Looks like a poll that supports 3rd party candidates without committing to vote on them.

This is so absurdly naive that it’s hardly worth answering.

I think you misread my statement that you quoted. I didn't say money wasn't helpful. And I never said we don't need to debate. I said the debates will come to us if we are popular (You won't have to doge bullets Neo).

Seriously, this is completely ridiculous and I won’t entertain the notion further.

Your call if you want to end on some bad arguments.

deaf_fish ,

Is that 63% specific candidate? Or is that 63% in general?

Because of its 63% for a specific candidate we can talk. Looks like it's just in general. Which makes sense because the two candidates are particularly bad this upcoming election.

Oh man, looks like you have no good arguments to counter mine, otherwise you would have used them. Looks like I'll have to put you back into the idiot category. Sorry.

deaf_fish ,

Whoa, where did I say the poll was meaningless?

How do you do that thing where you put things I never said in my mouth? Hey, let me try.

My name is OBJECTION! and I can't read.

Wow, that was easier than I thought it was.

Ad-homing is fun!

deaf_fish ,

The poll would have to be about a specific candidate. Not voting third party in general.

Third party in general just means that most people are sick of the two candidates in top. This could mean that we are splitting The 60% between five third-party candidates. This means the Democratic and Republican candidates are still on top?

Now if 60% of the people were interested in voting for the green candidate specifically. Then I'm very interested and a big funny is about to happen to the Republican or Democratic candidate.

deaf_fish ,

It was a counter to this statement.

When polls ask people who they intend to vote for, they would tell them that they intend to vote for the Democrats, because they consider the Greens nonviable.

But I now that I am re-reading it I see that I had misinterpreted it. I thought you were implying that polls only ask questions about voting and not option. This was my bad. Sorry.

deaf_fish ,

Or a poll that shows favorability over voting.

Your argument boils down to "We would need a thing that easily could exist and maybe currently doesn't exist and that's why this is an unsolvable problem."

deaf_fish ,

So, in your mind, if someone did this favorability poll you want, and it showed, say, 60% favorability for the Green Party, you would vote for them, and you imagine that the majority of Democratic voters would all spontaneous switch their votes over together?

Not Democratic voters (assuming you mean the party). Just voters.

If you're a Democrat and you feel like the Green Party has a candidate polling at a majority that represents your interests more than the Democratic candidate, why would you vote for the Democratic candidate instead? It goes against your interests. I know some Democrats are brain damaged, but I think that is only a small percentage (1 - 3 %).

This is like saying the majority of the population is leftist and has a chance at a bloodless revolution, but they decide to not take it because of shits and giggles.

deaf_fish ,

Polling as in “intends to vote for” or polling as in “has a favorable opinion of?”

We could try "has most favorable opinion of?" or "most ideologically aligned with?"

I feel like you are hinting at the possibility of not only a leftist majority but a majority interest in a specific candidate and we would be too dumb to figure that out. Is that your position?

You’re not going to find some clever solution that allows you to bypass the problem of coordinating a mass switch, that problem is fundamental.

Hey, ancient wisdom person, you need to be able to explain why the problem is fundamental and not solvable. I don't see it. And all that ancient wisdom does you no good politically if you can't impart it.

This is tiresome.

I agree, please stop making bad arguments so we can stop this thread or maybe I can learn something.

deaf_fish , (edited )

It’s a problem of coordinating a mass switch.

Ok, so I don't want to use up my one question, so I will just assume your position is that if we had one fascist leader and everyone else was a leftist who agreed on which candidate they would want to lead them, then the leftists wouldn't be able to do whatever to figure that out and the one and only fascists leader would stay in charge forever. Got it.

You really should vote for the lesser evil, because your opinion of the people you agree with is very low. By your own logic, you're are already screwed.

Now it’s that polls you just dreamed up that nobody is asking that are supposed to provide the mechanism for coordinating a switch.

Hey, if you have a general argument for why polling wont work, why didn't you use that instead of just asserting that it wouldn't without explaining (rhetorical question does not count)? That is why I am trying to figure out why you think that. The only way I know how to do that is by trying to figure out what wording is causing you issues.

Before I do: are you confident enough in that attempt that you’re ok with it being your very last one?

Yes, stop edging me. Any question I ask you, you will probably provide another evasive answer to. Anyone reading this thread will see that plainly. Please add more weight to my arguments.

I want to hear your response to this: Why would polls worded like “has most favorable opinion of?” or “most ideologically aligned with?" not work to detect a consensus of a single leftist candidate and why wouldn't people then vote for that candidate?

deaf_fish ,

Collective Action Problems

Oh, nice link (not sarcastic), I didn't realize these issues had a name. Thanks!

But it doesn't apply to the hypothetical. The first line is "A collective action problem or social dilemma is a situation in which all individuals would be better off cooperating but fail to do so because of conflicting interests between individuals that discourage joint action." The hypothetical was that the majority of people already agree on a specific candidate. So there are no conflicting interests that matter.

First off, let’s note that these polls do not currently exist.

I don't understand the point of this paragraph. Do you think the current green candidate has a majority interest? If so, then we should start making polls. Conservatives make polls every day like "Bad Black Man Bad?". I am pretty sure this not a difficult task, especially if we have a majority.

Second, if these polls did exist, their implications would not be immediately apparent.

Yes, I agree with this. I understand why this isn't ideal, but humans are messy. Like I said is might be 4 - 8 years before we are able to act on our majority.

I think "immediately" also points out some emotional energy. I think you are weighing the horrors of the current situation (and they are very bad) and are willing to take extreme risk to stop those horrors. An admirable goal, but taking those extremes risks has consequences and not just for you. The risk you are currently taking is trying to convince as many people as possible to vote in such a way to throw a wrench in the system. This can work if you can get a large enough amount of people, but that is like a 1 - 5 percent chance. That leaves a 95% percent chance that the outcomes will be the worst possible. On top of this, as you have said, you currently have no metrics. So you don't know how likely you are to succeed. It's a bad gamble and I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.

And if people saw it that way and did not switch, then the next election cycle, they would say, “see, we were right, it was a statistical anomaly, that question is not a reliable predictor of who would win.”

Ok, so we miss once and stop trying? Why is the left so weak in your mind? Why not just keep trying until we get the candidate that everyone wants elected elected?

Third, which candidates people like and dislike is influenced by the exposure they have to that candidate.

Where did this come from? I will assume this is a closing argument and not an answer to my question. As I have stated before. Money is very helpful, but not necessary. You can do things like fundraise. Berne proved that it was possible. And the bigger the majority you have, the more of a source you have.

Is that enough?

You linked me to an interesting wiki article that didn't apply. You wrote a paragraph about how we currently don't have polls, then claimed victory. You talked about how my idea wouldn't work right away, then assumed people would just give up. Then you talked about how money was necessary, which was not part of the question.

So your answer boils down to leftist will just give up even if they have the majority, because organizing is hard and not perfect.

I will accept this. I asked a question, you answered to the best of your ability. You and I are both tired of this conversation. I am good with ending it here. I will not be replying to this conversation after this.

I will have to find someone else to convince me that no-voting or 3rd party voting is a good idea, because we are not communicating well.

I wish you well. No hard feelings, have a nice life.

deaf_fish ,

This is funny and it makes me feel good. But you know as well as I do, that it doesn't matter what any religious text says is right or wrong. Fascism and capitalism will take control and health care will be a personal problem.

deaf_fish ,

So like a CEO?

deaf_fish ,

How does the man/bear discussion disenfranchise and antagonize young men?

On top of not being a creeper, you also need to bathe regularly to get a chance at a date.

Does the fact that you have to bathe regularly antagonize and disenfranchise young men?

I would argue the man/bear thought experiment gives young men a useful look inside the average womans life that they wouldn't have had otherwise.

deaf_fish ,

Nothing wrong with masculinity. Toxic masculinity is what we are against.

deaf_fish ,

I see, I may have misinterpreted it.

deaf_fish ,

I was just trying to be helpful. No need to attack me for it.

deaf_fish ,

Your feelings are valid, but so are women's. If 1 out of every 6 of my friends got shot by a black person, then I would rather be in the woods with the bear instead of a black person. Now, does that justify treating black people badly and avoiding them, no. You can have a feeling and understand why it is bad and racist and not act on it. Do women avoid men, no. Feelings are not the same as actions. You can be afraid of what might happen while going out on a first date with a man.

The outcome man/bear thought experiment never said that all men are bad/rapists.

Can you change it, yes. But it is harder (societal changes).

  1. Make sure your male friends understand consent. The 1 out of 6 number is how many women who have experienced sexual violence against them.
  2. I know a lot of women watch crime scene investigations. Maybe throw some real statistics about crime in those shows, so that women don't get the idea that there is a murderer around every corner.
deaf_fish ,

That proves you were the one that was targeted. It doesn't say anything about your intentions.

You could have had the best intentions and just missed the signs that it was a malicious email. Or you could have intentionally clicked on it out of spite.

If I knew my employee did it out of spite, I would fire them. Otherwise, it falls under the shit happens category, try to do better next time.

deaf_fish ,

Hey, if running a business was easy, everyone would be doing it. We can't have that.

deaf_fish ,

Yes, any file that is marked as executable can be "run". 9 times out of 10 the user has to do this explicitly.

deaf_fish ,

I don't know. Not everyone who uses a computer should be an expert. Not everyone is 100% alert all the time. I know there has to be a line somewhere.

I feel like it would be really easy to have the OS check if the exe is appended to some other extension and force the user to rename it before allowing it to be executed.

deaf_fish ,

I don't think you are causing any problems by not posting a small description of the project.

Sounds like you just don't want to, why not just say that?

deaf_fish ,

I am sorry others didn't hear you. I saw your edit and I think it makes sense. I hope you feel better soon. Emotions are a wild ride. I know from experience.

deaf_fish ,

These people are a critical part of the computer ecosystem. Without them, no one would use any settings other than the default. We may not have yet discovered the dark theme.

Good meme.

deaf_fish ,

Didn't they change license at some point, so it's no longer open source?

deaf_fish ,

The conservatives don't like her because she's popular and she is pro LGBTQ+

deaf_fish ,

Liberals care about that?

I thought hating the rich was a left thing?

As a leftist myself, I'm not a fan of TSwift, but I think there's much bigger and much worse targets to meme about. So I think all these TSwift posts are conservatives or bots.

deaf_fish ,

Oh you know that's where the engineering effort is going

deaf_fish ,

Hahahahahaha...

It's cheaper if we starve to death.

deaf_fish ,

Withhold your vote and people who don't care about or like genocide will decide the future of this country.

deaf_fish ,

Until you hit the bones

deaf_fish ,

Are we talking superman bones or regular bones? Because I don't think super man bones will break.

deaf_fish ,

It's only because they didn't have the grind set mind set /s

deaf_fish ,

Is debian a good choice for new users? I know it's used as a base for a lot of distros. But I've never used it. I assumed it was more technical and less user friendly.

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