FaceDeer

But yeah I mean there probably would be some survivors.

This is literally the whole point I’m making. I really don’t get the downvotes, it seems perfectly straightforward.

I’m not Malthusian. What does Malthusianism have to do with this?

It’s very straightforward math based on the article you posted. It’s not saying that a nuclear war wouldn’t be bad, or shouldn’t be avoided. Of course that should be avoided.

My issue is with the people who insist that humanity as a species is at risk from nuclear war. That’s the part that’s wrong.

In Tyreek’s post-arrest press conference he asked rhetorically “what would have happened if I hadn’t been famous?”

Well, now we see. Wrist-slaps with no actual long-term impact.

Removed by mod

The Fediverse seems a lot “bubblier” than Reddit, with people quicker to hit the downvote button for views that intrude. I’ve lost a lot of drive to engage here, I find myself often dropping a comment into a discussion and then never looking back at it. Unfortunate, but I suppose not too surprising when communities are smaller.

Yup. I would personally love it if the electorate studied the various policies of candidates that wished to be their representatives, decided which ones’ positions were the most beneficial to themselves and to the country as a whole (which is indirectly beneficial to themselves, after all) and then selected that one on a rational basis. If we lived in that world then each candidates’ campaign would ideally focus on debating issues and presenting their views.

We don’t live in that world, alas. I’ve become cynical about democracy of late because the electorate are a bunch of sports team fans who just want “their guy” to win. Well, so be it then. It’s kind of an emergency right now so play whatever strategy keeps the regressive loons out of power.

It’s often not a choice between an AI-generated summary and a human-generated one, though. It’s a choice between an AI-generated summary and no summary.

Could it perhaps be that online communities are in bubbles that focus primarily on his failures and downvote into oblivion any mention of successes he might have had?

…

No, it must be the money that’s wrong.

Not in every way. They’re cheaper and faster.

DMCA is about copyright (that’s what the “C” is). The name of a show isn’t copyrighted, it’s trademarked. Different type of IP altogether.

“Takedown notice” has legal meaning, it’s not some random cease-and-desist letter that you can draft for anything you want and that has no legal weight other than that it might be scary.

Thanks for the clarification. Wasn’t sure how down into the weeds of why Starliner would go boom I should go, but this is clear and I should have been more specific about the “hypergolic” term.

It’s actually a lot worse than just thrusters not working any more. At least according to the unofficial “word on the street” about what’s going on, the details haven’t been officially released yet.

It appears that the cause of the failures was because the thrusters are housed inside compartments that are containing their waste heat. The thrusters were tested individually, but apparently were never tested once installed inside the capsule. The heat is causing teflon valves to fail, which clogs the thruster plumbing and disables them. But the scary thing is that the heat necessary to do that to teflon would also potentially be enough to boil the hypergolic fuel itself inside the fuel lines.

When you heat hypergolic fuel up enough it will spontaneously ignite. It’s got its own oxidizer in it, essentially. Which means those thrusters could well be bombs that could go off if they’re fired too long.

The way they’re talking about moving the unmanned capsule away from ISS, slowly and gently, it sounds like they’re concerned Starliner could literally explode next to the station. That would be, to put it mildly, very very bad.

If any of this is true then this is going to be a colossal scandal. This is Starliner’s third test flight, it’s absolutely incredible that Boeing wouldn’t have figured this out by now and that NASA let them get away with such a shoddy program.

No, it’s opt-in. If you do nothing you won’t have it.

They’re not “pushing their Recall shit whether we like it or not”, they’re explicitly making it opt-in. They gave a fuck about their users’ complaints and made a bunch of modifications to it.

You may still not like it, but give them some credit.

If you simply don’t want to engage in a discussion with him, then that’s fine, you should let him know that you’re not interested in talking about it. You don’t have to justify your choices to him, if you want to use a particular browser then that’s fine and if he spontaneously decides he needs to “talk you out of it” then that’s a dick move. Tell him that you don’t want to debate the subject and it’s no skin off of his nose so he shouldn’t try to engage you in one.

But if you’re asking “how can I convince him that he’s wrong”, well that is engaging in the debate. And if you’re going to engage in a debate you should try to be as open about it as you’d like your debate opponent to be in turn. Have you considered that perhaps he has some valid points and is not taking that position just to be contrarian?

Personally, I find that it’s pretty much impossible to talk someone with a strongly-held position out of that position. The value of Internet debates with people like that is that lots of spectators who don’t have such strongly-held positions may be watching, but when it’s a one-on-one situation it’s likely to be a futile and frustrating effort with no benefit. So I would advise going with the “don’t bother engaging” route. But of course, if you feel strongly that you want to engage, I can’t change your mind on that and won’t try. It’s your time to spend.

Some people are so addicted to anger that they’ll shoot themselves in the foot just so they’ll have something to complain about.

“The gimp” is a character from Pulp Fiction. You’re imagining things and refusing to use a powerful tool in response to that imagined slight.

Seemed pretty fair and fact-based to me. What bias are you seeing?

Yes, that would also be statistical correlations to an AI model. The specific kind of information they’re being trained on doesn’t affect the underlying mechanism of model training.