Ideally the answers aren’t just political soapboxing.
People who disagree with you are not necessarily evil, stupid or uninformed.
I’d agree with you, but then we’d both be wrong.
Oh you evil, stupid, uninformed…!!!
False
Well, more than 50% of people tend to think they are average. So illusions of mediocrity?
More than 50% of people can be average, depends on the distribution.
97% of people are average (3 standard deviations), so they are not deluded. Its actually higher than that as the intellectually impaired don’t live very long.
So many things when it comes to police stops. There is absolutely a problem with policing in America but there is a list of things you ARE required to do when stopped by the police, whether you agree with them or not, and refusing doesn’t help you and only helps them. Yes you are required to have your license on you when driving, and yes you must display and/or hand it over to police when asked. Yes they can ask you to step out of the car. Yes they can search your car if they tow it. Hell watch a few videos on YouTube of traffic stops and you’ll quickly figure out what you do and do not have to comply with. And you will never, ever win an argument with the police on the side of the road, save it for court.
Fantastic response
Best advice I ever heard.
Always treat cops as if they just came from dealing with something really awful.
They might have just seen a child abuse case, or a really bad accident, of a fire.
Assert your rights in the court, not in the street.
POLITELY assert your rights on the streets. If an officer asks if they can search your trunk, tell them that you would rather they didn’t.
“Do I have to” and it’s variants are deferential without necessarily ceding your rights in a way that “oh, sure” does. They don’t need any cause at all if you give permission, and if you give permission it’s going to be hard or impossible to argue later that it was an unreasonable search.
The sad truth is that you need to assume that you’re on camera whenever you interact with a police officer, act as if whatever you say will be either edited and shown to the jury or described to them out of context to justify whatever bad actions the officer takes.
100% be polite and even friendly, but 0% on “just let the officer do whatever and think you can fight it in court later.”
Very simple, “I do not consent to any search,” but do not interfere with armed people. Once you have asserted your right, you should not try to impede them violating them. Too risky. Let the courts protect you. Or hope that they do, at least.
One thing to note is that they are allowed to lie to you, so like you said, important to know your rights, but mostly they can find probable cause to do whatever.
That the bible is a good book from a good deity. The bible is filled with deity advocated slavery, rape, genocide, and totally unnecessary blood sacrafice.
Lmao cringe soapboxing. Your position is the Bible is simply a book promoting slavery, rape, and genocide. Can you reconcile why it has also inspired movements against slavery, for civil rights, and for charity. Do you think describing something in the Bible is the same as endorsing it? And how do you distinguish between laws given to ancient Israel and moral principles Christians believe apply today? Feels like the kind of statement an edgy 16 year old with the inability/inexperience to understand historic, cultural or theologic context would make. Yes, I recognize this is Lemmy and I’ll heavily be in the minority with any opinion that isn’t “religion bad”.
People cherry pick the bible. Yes, the deity of the bible explicitly advocates for rape, slavery, and murder in the bible. Not only does it describe it, it advocates for it. It’s not my job to distinguish between bullshit laws in the bible and today’s laws. That is a christian problem they need to ask themselves. I for one, do not take what the bible says seriously. I’m just stating that it’s not what people make it out to be. It’s not good.
Hit me with some verses that support your statement.
If you want to debate, I’ll do you one better. Listen to the atheist experience 30.27. They talk about this very topic. They have the bible verses you want. I don’t feel googling bible verses for you and debating you. Maybe call them and defend your faith as instructed to you by 1 Peter 3:15 (I remember that). It’s a call in show. I always enjoy listening to people try to defend slavery, rape, murder and their deity.
One of the biggest misconceptions is that internet discussion is political action.
11/10 answer
That the world is a zero sum game. That in order to have something, someone else has to go without. That in order to be great you have to drag others down.
Yeah I agree that isn’t true
It’s the driver for misogyny, homophobia, racism, xenophobia, and so much else.
Exactly. If we could lose that somehow the world would be so much nicer to live in.
A lot of those aren’t necessarily a “zero sum game” strategy and more of just that many people are genuinely judgemental, ignorant piles of shit.
It’s a mix of things! Many racists don’t think of themselves as racist and primarily worry about actions to empower minorities because of the zero sum thinking, not so much because it’s helping “the wrong people”
These people must fail to understand how consensual sex works
Probably never had it
It has been my experience that, if you could identify these people, they are the best to avoid. Excising these people from your life can very quickly prove it.
Capitalism is worse. It’s literally Monopoly. We’ve all played that shitty fucking game. With capitalism you get perpetual inflation. A negative sum game. A zero sum game at least implies some basic conservation mechanics, perhaps even a fairness. A negative sum game is a total debt based economy. Waste is a feature. Disposability and commodities go together like peas and carrots, and that ethos sadly reverberates across ecosystems until the planet is dead but you got those pounds or dollars or pesos or whatever. Can’t eat them. Can’t really do Jack shit with them.
The rich gonna wake up some day soon and find the farmer has a well oiled rifle. They’ll make rich fertilizer… 🤑
What other people really think of them.
You never know just how you look through other people’s eyes.
Some will die in hot pursuit in fiery auto crashes. Some will die in hot pursuit while sifting through my ashes.
It’s like that joke on The Simpsons.
Fat Tony thinks of himself as a legitimate businessman with 75 arrests and only three convictions, while Ned Flanders thinks he’ll burn in Hell if he doesn’t pay his taxes by January 3.
Pandas reproduce just fine in nature. The myth of them being bad at fucking and making babies was a myth started from before we understood zoochosis. No animal wants to have babies in a prison, it’s not just pandas.
People tend to assume if someone is smart in one thing, they’re smart with everything else too.
That’s not usually the case.
Similarly, people who assume that anyone who struggles with English as a second+ language is an idiot
This one always surprised me
Good point I like that answer. Conflating knowledge on a specific topic with general intelligence.
And also assuming that someone who’s not smart in one area is not smart in any area.
I can differ 17 different kinds of glue by taste!
Sure, but without this flaw engineers wouldn’t have any personality at all.
Yup this is me and my dad, he’s great with handy work and has built numerous homes. I am good with technology and can build a server and make my own software. Put us in opposite roles and were both dumbasses.
Or if they are rich, they must be smart or a genius, because they got rich while everyone else did not, its further from the truth, since most of these people come from wealth to begin with. adjacent, same goes for these succesful youtubers/streamers/influencers, these top ones we see all the time dint come from rags to riches, they came from being rich or very well off.
Most people here have been using AI in some form for their entire lives without knowing it. It just did its job quietly with nobody noticing. Then venture capital (or just capitalism itself) ruined everything and broke the contract: publicly acquired data must be given back to the public for free.
I could pontificate at length about the terminology and how it has gotten fucked. The blending of the terms itself is part of what makes it difficult to have a reasonable and nuanced discussion.
Let’s take a moment to separate out AI from machine learning from deep learning from LLMs.
AI is fucking old. It used to mean “any algorithms that create intelligent behavior”. Not a particularly useful definition these days, but it used to mean things like pathfinding and searching.
Machine learning is a more useful phrase: a set of algorithms to solve problem where we don’t know “how”, but we have examples of inputs and outputs. For example, I don’t know how I would define cute, but if someone showed me a bunch of photos I could probably say which ones were cute, not cute, and unsure.
Deep learning is a subset of machine learning that uses a specific set of algorithms: neutral networks.
LLMs are a subset of deep learning that use “transformers”. Which is a specific architecture that does a lot of things quite well, like determine how proteins fold, how drugs interact, how words interact in a sentence, etc.
If you’ve used Google Maps at any point since it was created, you’ve used classical AI.
If you’ve used email, you’ve used machine learning.
If you’ve used a photos app that lets you search for similar pictures of people, you’ve used machine learning.
If you’ve had more than one prescription filled in the past five years, your pharmacist has used AI (even if they don’t know it) to check potential drug interactions.
Don’t get me wrong, I fucking hate that the field I spent my whole life researching has been coopted into a way to siphon money from people into the coffers of the richest fucking parasites, but when people say “fuck AI” they have either lost the nuance or never had it. Everyone that hears the message experiences on the surface and it does them a disservice.
When the luddites broke the textile looms, did they hate the machines or did they hate the loss of their livelihoods?
When the early industialists broke into factories and smashed their equipment, did they hate the machines or did they hate the captains of industry that forced them to work inhumane hours in terrible conditions?
When people say “fuck AI” do they hate the math that, until this point, has led to a better world for us all, or do they hate the system that has enshittified it into one of pure exploitation?
This whole mess feels like a distraction to me. Tech should be a social good. It should be helping people. Not to say it’s without problems, but now when we say “fuck AI” it leads us to pushing back against technology itself rather than the system that’s using it to hurt people.
I like my professor’s view in AI from over a decade ago. AI is the term non commercially viable research. Once something becomes viable it gets rebranded, like automatic text recognition, computer vision, machine learning, llms. It worked great until generative AI was good enough to impress average people, then it became a great way to attract venture capital. It’s still not quite viable so the rule holds, but we are in a very messy and public era where several products are likely to emerge and separate from the AI title.
Potentially triggering, beware: belief is something reserved for everything outside of the material and observable, like the afterlife, God and values. Often people want material “evidence” as a prerequisite for belief but it just doesn’t work that way, there’s no necessary material connection between that and belief. Ofc, belief that cannot conform to one’s reason and understanding will never stand for long, but it has nothing to do with the world perceived by the senses, that’s what all scientific fields and tools are for!
When I say many people here/in the West don’t understand the nature of belief, that’s what I mean. They don’t stand for anything, they just accept the world through their senses and in the absence of values (again, belief), they can only default to consumerism and hedonism (because the senses say they feel good and that’s all one can “know” in the absence of belief).
“Belief” and “values” are not synonymous and not dependant upon one another.
I like that answer.
Faith is the belief in something without evidence, or in the face of contradictory evidence
It’s choosing to believe without good reason
I’m never going to respect that.
To say that people have no values because they’re not part of some superstitious nonsense says a lot about you, as does your straw man of “consumerism and hedonism”
Like I said, if it goes against your understanding you’ll never truly believe it, not for long at least. It’s not choosing to believe with no “good reason”, it’s choosing to believe despite there being no relation at all between matters of fact (ascertained by the senses) and that. Check out Hume’s fork, it’s kinda like that. God is not in this world, God is necessarily outside of it and of a different nature (we’re data for God the programmer, we’re his free-willed Sims and the universe is a sandbox) so you can’t find Him here, through our senses, and added to that are the classical fork interdictions (e.g., moral statements cannot derive from matters of fact, one can simply not care).
And if you have some somewhat prosocial if not completely developed set of moral standards, well that’s great, I’m happy! Men are made good after all, hence the propaganda needed to turn one against each other.
Awww, came here with my political soap box :(
People who put their toast butter side down are idiots, that much we can all agree on.
Yes, but if you eat it buttered side down you’ll taste the butter better.
Thanks for reading
Math is memorizing and performing algorithms. So many adults looked at the common core math curriculum and said teachers aren’t teaching math anymore because they didn’t see their favorite long division algorithm taught, but memorizing and performing any particular algorithm is not what is important about learning math. Math is about taking axioms and seeing what you can build with them.
Common core got a really bad rap because of the poor implementations by companies like Pearson. But the actual curricula are very good.
Pure maths that was taught over 5 years in the 18th century in university is now taught in 3 years in high school with several other subjects.
So material is stripped down into small pieces and learnt by heart completely out of context- it is basically just learning algorithms.
The word you’re missing is “arithmetic”. For most people “math(s)” and “arithmetic” are the same thing, when the latter is only the commonly encountered part of the former.
And for many of those people, algorithms are the only way they can use arithmetic to reach a goal because the intuition isn’t there otherwise.
I say this in full knowledge that even though I’m pretty good at arithmetic, much of the intuition I have now took me years after leaving school, and sometimes for more advanced things it’s still not there.
For example, on a good day I can complete the square, and I understand the geometric intuition, but most of the time I’m just going to plug and chug with the quadratic formula.
Tax Brackets. “I got a pay raise and will now be taxed more and make less money than before the raise”
If <=30k was taxed at 25% and 30+k taxed at 30% and you go from 30k to 31k a year, only the 1k is taxed at the higher rate.
I get that this might not be super intuitive. but how can one not notice that this is untrue? don’t people check their accounts and see that there is still more coming in and not less? just not as much as one might want, but still.
You assume people look at their accounts and do some form of account keeping?
Actually, yeah. I just cannot fathom how one could not at least check what goes in and what comes out. Nowadays you get push notifications for everything anyways, so I just do not get it.
This depends on the country
Is this really a common misconception?
Very very common in Australia.
Yes, unfortunately.
Benefit cliffs do exist however.
Our sun’s proper name in English is not Sol. It’s just the Sun. It’s referred to as Sol in various scifi franchises and some Romance languages which is where the misconception comes from, but in English it’s just “the Sun.”
Yeah, well, me and Sol are bros, so imma keep calling him by the cool nickname he got when he was travelling through Spain
Better Call Sol.
I think part of it just comes from the practice of naming other star systems after the star they orbit. E.g. the Epsilon Eridani system orbits Epsilon Eridani. Our own star system is generically called the “Solar System,” so sci-fi likes to formalize into the Sol System.
Isn’t sol latin?
It is, and it’s Spanish as well.
