… What?
Is this some weird “victim mentality” thing?
People love to use it because it got popular and grew to mean more than the original definition to the point where it just got generic to encompass a wide range of things. It’s the same as cringe.
I thought the same thing. People are obsessed with the word gaslighting.
This seems more like textbook hypocrisy. Person doing thing talks about the harms of others doing that thing.
Omg what kind of dog is that? It’s marvelous.
This post is both insightful and troubling. Using generative AI services to simulate conversations without explicit disclosure can be seen as unethical. Some might argue that this damages the connection that users can feel towards each other, even in an online community. Such matters should be addressed in order to restore consumer trust in the platform.
(I wrote that to sound like a GenAI response, how did I do?)
I mean generally it’s all correlated. It’s not perfect, but typically a 2-3 point national poll lead is close to an electoral college tie.
I have to say this is not a good take. Polls aren’t all the same, but news outlets treat them like they are. Even the same pollsters come up with slightly different numbers each time they run them.
Because there is a certain amount of uncertainty doesn’t make them invalid. We just need to be more educated on filtering the good from the bad.
You sort of have 2 options:
Get educated on polling errors, the statistics, and the methodologies of the polls and arrive at your own conclusions.
Ignore anything written by the main media outlets about polls, because looking at a single poll is really dumb.
They definitely do matter, and there’s validity to them, but they don’t claim to be the exact truth. If you know how to use them, they are quite helpful.
These are great points. I’ll have to think on this a bit further - thanks for the info!
I see your points here. I don’t think they are wrong, but I have a different opinion on Trump’s election.
I think the onset of social media created a real shit storm of misinformation particularly during the Obama years. I don’t think it was backlash because he was black (though I admit this is not knowable, just my opinion), but more because of the overall grievance with how things operate.
You can’t really separate race out of the equation, because I think Democrats had good messaging showing the effects of institutional racism and sexism against minority groups, particularly at a systemic level. However, there was a massive concentration of wealth in America at the same time.
Trumo came along and his message wasn’t really that novel. He just said hey, this shit sucks for everyone, not just minorities. White people are getting screwed too. And I’m the guy that’s going to fight for the rural voter.
I take your point that it’s not outright racism. It’s not someone saying I’m not voting for this person solely because they are X, it’s some end around way of going about it. But I think Trump played the White Greivance card and I think Democrats are getting a little better at leaning into it. The unfortunate truth is that both things are totally true. White people are getting screwed (concentration of wealth to hover levels) AND minorities groups are getting screwed (because of systematic racist effects that are still residual in daily life for them).
As I’m talking this out, I’m not sure where to land. There’s multiple pieces here that intersect with race, but I’m not sure they are the core tenant. I think there might be some voters who realize that everyone is getting screwed, but maybe worry that Harris would prioritize racial issues before overall everyone getting boned issues. Maybe that’s the group?
Didn’t come to a great conclusion, but your comment had some layers to it so it got me thinking.
I think you skipped part of the argument. I’m sure those people exist, but what about the number of disengaged voters who were over Joe Biden or disagreed with him on various issues? I think the number of votes lost because of race or gender is not 0, but the gains through reinvigoration are far, far higher.
Right… We become beholden to the laggards of social progress because we think we can’t win without them, and we alienate and stagnate the progress of those doing the most.
This is a hilarious misreading of polling data. Kamala may not win, but her percentage chance to win might be double or more of what Bidens was.
People I follow were estimating Biden at 10-15% by the time the election rolled around. All the models assume that a candidate would run a normal campaign. Something that he is not capable of doing.
How many people, realistically, would vote for a white male Democrat but NOT a non-white female?
People are talking about this, but I don’t know who this voter is. The hard line racists and sexists were not moderates, they’re all already Republican.
There are far more democrats that were against Biden because of his age than would be against Harris as a woman. This is a net gain. Fuck the people who won’t vote for her along gender or racial lines. I don’t want to try and appease them.
Give people something to vote FOR rather than vote against.
There is a sizeable gap between “beyond a reasonable doubt” in terms of a very specific law, and things that are gross/immoral.
People keep questioning the timeline as a defense… They might not have known until 2020. It’s normally against internal company policies to just look through people’s DMs. It’s not like someone’s job is to rifle through them. They probably were made aware of it, and then took action.
That’s speculation on my part, but if Twitch sat on it for 3 years, shame on them too, but that doesn’t so shit for this guy. It was still not ok.
The monetary incentive was to pay out his contract so they didn’t have a VERY public story about a VERY high profile streamer inappropriately messaging a minor with their service. That could be super damaging for Twitch. So they likely paid it out to try and bury the story.
Mountain Goats right?
Why is that moth a Kangaroo
Yeah this doesn’t seem like a great take. I think there’s severe selection bias.
I like a narrow band of crypto projects. I think the vast majority of things you hear about are scams. There’s a ton of bad actors in the space. My advice to people is just to be careful, but I don’t promote crypto because I don’t promote things that you should have a good understanding of before investing in them. I’m not in the business of risking other people’s money. I’ll talk about the tech, but usually uninterested in a specific token.
I don’t think your brand of zero tolerance will work on such a broad scale. I do think you should aggressively shut down any specifics about [token or project], but it’s not inevitable that people go towards shilling.
I was one of the top users of a crypto subreddit, and it got over run in the way you are talking about. Shills and people talking about price, etc. I wanted to have real conversations about the tech and implications. I left because it wasn’t what I wanted anymore.
There are people who can talk about those topics with the nuance required, but I agree many cannot.
Aggressive moderation? Good idea.
Zero tolerance policy? Bad idea.
Given the above you’ll retreat to “so a little Nazi-ism is OK?” - and if you can’t figure out the difference between the two and your view is that polarized, I don’t think we’ll really find any common ground here.
People don’t read. And before you down vote, it’s still bad.
It was not a human system that was posing as AI. It was a shitty AI that needed a lot of human intervention.
Yes, it’s still shit. Yes it’s still a problem with how they implemented it and how they pitched it.
But there needs to be a higher level of criticism. Saying “it was just human labor the whole time” is flatly incorrect. The better criticism is the truth… They made AI so shitty that it needed a bunch of human interaction, and their product was really really bad.
I’ve heard so many people state this as “there wasn’t any AI, it was just humans watching cameras.” And the false narrative distracts from the real story.
People pretend the truth doesn’t matter, and will retreat to “well even if it was AI it was so bad so I was still basically right.” and that’s a problem.
I would share similar feelings.
Andor is great because it’s largely disconnected. They don’t rely on any big major cameos, there’s hardly even Jedi or Force involved. It’s just a standalone story in the same universe. Honestly, the same things that made Rogue One great make Andor great.
I don’t think you’ll be disappointed, unless you wanted more Skywalker Family Space Drama.
Andor was the anti Star Wars series. It was the best written series of all time in Star Wars terms. The dialouge was not just good, it was fucking captivating. Almost every star wars film or show the script is usually mediocre at best and has to be overcome by the actors.
Andor had multiple scenes that left me in awe of the great writing. Maybe it’s because my expectations were low… But damn it was good.
Technically… But there’s also a lot of waste from the 500 pack that people throw out half of. It likely evens out.