Extremely high budget for ads and posters, social media campaigns, etc., all paid from foreign countries under dubious circumstances by straw men. It's all copy & paste across EU countries, far-right parties even copy the slogans they put on their posters, they just exchange the country name.
That's kinda implying that they only got elected because they had money and a good campaign instead of addressing issues that are not addresses in an effective way by the other parties.
This is probably the case of both things being true at the same time.
I don't disagree but I see this more psychologically by now. Certain mechanisms are just tried and tested, what worked for Mussolini works just as well today, and it's always the same kind of people who are attracted to it.
Of course, it's not just the support by various enemies of Europe and Germany, there are many factors like always. In this particular case there are also historical reasons for the rise of Neonazism in parts of the former GDR and many other former East Bloc countries. I don't want to go into the details, everybody knows that story, but it's worth noting the Skinnheads Sächsische Schweiz of the 90s are now the fathers of young voters and particularly few things had been done against this trend in Saxony. When you allow Neonazi movements to become a major youth culture, you're bound to get serious problems. Since the AfD has absorbed the NPD, it's just the political arm of a vast movement there.
Did the Brexit campaign address the issues of the people who voted for it? Are all those people now better off because of it? Did Trump and his 'no new wars' and '$1.99 gas' and
'Drain the swamp' and 'Balance the budget' address the issues of the people who voted for him?
Or did they just lie out of their ass and leave everyone worse off?
This says more about the electorate than the candidates. You can’t have a segment of your population that refuses to connect ideas and expect a working society to come out the other end.
they connect ideas all day. xenophobia is that, making fast and loose connections.
unfortunately we are deep into the TikTok times, and simple, but catchy ideas dominate. it's flat Earth, QAnon, anti-vax, anti-economics but now in 4K.
It clarifies what, exactly? That there are a myriad of spellings for a group whose name is originally in Arabic and couldn't care at all about how we spell it? I was just correcting the person who thought it was inaccurate to use the spelling "Hizballah".
It's defined in the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Long title but the document is like two pages, easy reading for even the intellectually laziest persons.
That definition is less than ideal from several perspectives. It serves neither side.
The worst reason to hate it is that it relies on proving intent (dolus specialis), which essentially makes it unenforceable unless the perpetrator is a group of simpletons.
It really hit me when I realized that there are only two ways to prove intent: The criminal admits it, or the prosecution proves that there are literally zero other possible explanations that could possibly fit the actions.
So - Back to the point. Did the USA assist people guilty of genocide by your own chosen definition? Not if there could be literally any other intention.
Keep in mind that Hamas's own convention (1988) clearly declares that they partly exist as a group for the purpose of wiping Israel out, and they did actually perpetrate October 7th. It would be very difficult for even the best lawyer in the world to argue that self-defense couldn't be at least one possible intention, and given that the nation of Israel probably has one or two decent lawyers, they'd likely be able to come up with a few other possible intentions as well, but they only need one to completely avoid prosecution.
A second reason to hate it is that it doesn't carve out exceptions for mutual combat situations, even the ones that that have been dragging on for thousands of years. When two religious groups or ethnicities from neighboring regions fight each other in open combat few reasonable people would refer to that as a genocide, but it might be considered genocide against both sides if we interpret the UN Convention as it was actually ratified.
> even the intellectually laziest persons
Yo mama.
To be more serious, this wasn't necessary and was rude. What was your goal? To convince me? To convince others? Neither are best accomplished with this sort of behavior.
> It really hit me when I realized that there are only two ways to prove intent: The criminal admits it, or the prosecution proves that there are literally zero other possible explanations that could possibly fit the actions.
I doubt we'll have absolute certainty about genocide until Nuremberg-style trials take place. The problem is such trials won't happen unless the international community intervenes, and they don't seem willing to intervene without 100% certainty. Chicken-egg problem.
> To be more serious, this wasn't necessary and was rude. What was your goal? To convince me?
My goal wasn't to convince you. My goal was to answer your question even though you were, in my opinion, intellectually lazy when you asked it. Now you pretend you've done your homework and suddenly are an expert on definitions of genocide, of course. That's great! At least you've read the convention now.
Seriously, though, it seems striking to me that you asked in bad faith, and I'm not interested in discussing this matter any further. Ask non-rhetorical questions only if you don't believe to know the answer yet!
I still think a decentralized DNS alternative could scale, if done the right way. I also think that the majority of sites would be more secure if they used a system like ssh to deal with certificates, and government-controlled trust chains should be left for banking and other "official" stuff.
I'm working on something like this with Dap[1] (full disclosure, I used to be heavy into the Handshake[2] ecosystem). Where previous alt-roots failed is having nothing to build on it. Lots of marketing about how "things will be different" this time while providing nothing in the way of getting developers building experiences atop this new naming system.
Claiming your root is more secure isn't enough, what can people DO with it and WHY should they care? I've ranted enough about this to deaf ears over a half decade to no avail. Even if Dap doesn't end up being the first credible alt-root, I do hope something appears and is not immediately linked to (objectively) illegal/evil activity.
In my experience these templates don't cover enough and are always faulty. Not only that, most real-world projects use many different programming languages and markup languages.
I agree but that's not even enough. If you only lease the game, they will also need to tell you exactly for how long you lease it. Any reasonable person would have an issue with a lease for an indefinite time period that can be canceled at any time without refund, it doesn't sound acceptable at all.
The graph is interesting because it has the cost increasing on the x-axis but a natural reading would rather suggest "more to the right is better." Unless I misinterpret the graphics, Gemini 3.7 High is extremely good at a way lower price than most others.
The entire premise of what that prize is is meaningless.
Basically an AGI should be able to exist as an algorithm initialized with random weights, and then learn everything from scratch. Training models on large data sets is not even remotely close to AGI.
I agree and price shouldn't really matter when discussing alleged AGI anyway, I was just astonished by the price difference from a more practical point of view.
I don't consider that sensible at all. The law is supposed to protect children. It's hypocritical to exempt certain operating systems from the law, and, to be honest, I'm astonished this is legal/constitutional in California.
What I meant is that if we take the law as a given, then the exemption we are discussing here are very good and sensible. I wish they weren't needed, but given that they are, the language seems sensible.
This issue should be independent of whether or not you think the law is idiotic. The exemption is unwarranted and likely illegal no matter what you think about the law because it's unjust to exempt some operating systems and include others.
Have you ever visited the real world? You have to live with plenty of idiotic laws all the time. This does not mean you have to like them. Nor does it mean you can't welcome laws that remedy some of the downsides of the idiotic laws.
I really struggle to understand what you're trying to say. Is it that since the original law is dumb, we should accept no remedy short of getting rid of that original law? I think you'll find making progress in the real world very hard with that attitude.
Your reply appears bizarre to me, I can only kindly ask you to re-read what I've written above carefully. I have never suggested in any way that I consider the original law dumb, on the contrary I have stated explicitly that it shouldn't matter at all what someone believes about the question whether that law is stupid or not to determine that exempting certain operating systems from a law is ill-conceived and might very well turn out to be illegal/unconstitutional. I don't have anything to add to this because the point should be obvious, it concerns fundamental legal principles.
Agree, I think the law will be challenged on that basis, and ultimately thrown out. Millions of taxpayer dollars wasted, when they could have been actually solving the problem by making platforms responsible for the content they distribute.
Rust's user community is toxic and unbearable. That's enough to explain the widespread resentment against it. Their fanboys are annoying. CommonLisp used to have a similar community problem.
Yeah, I love Rust as a language but I engage with the community as little as possible. They are not pleasant to be around. Language is dope though, I really enjoy it.
I write Rust code. I don’t mind it. But the truth is, I use very little of the language.
I visit the Discord, and I see all the crazy overcomplicated shit these people are writing.
If I had to try and make heads or tails of some of that shit I’d go crazy.
I actually think some of it is actual trolling by Rust itself.
And yes, the people are toxic. It’s like they really believe C and C++ and everyone else did literally everything wrong. And some of their justifications are seriously weak sauce.
And remember, I like Rust. At least the parts I use. But it’s easily going to eclipse C++ in complexity if it continues the way it has been operating.
Yup, definitely the Rust users who are toxic. Totally not the people going into every thread about Rust to tell everyone about how toxic Rust users are. Nope.
But it is true, you see way more comments complaining about "the toxic Rust community" than said toxic community itself. At some point it just becomes annoying and tiring...
You didn't talk about this thread in your previous posts, you talked generally about the community just like I did. However, to answer your question: Yes, I've spotted some, and they are rather annoying.
I doubt that future. Traditionally, only hardcore power users are interested in extending software. Normal end users want reliable software that does what they want it to do. Some of them also want a certain amount of shiny buttons and UI effects to look at. I'm not saying there is no market for heavily personalized software, just that it is not going to be big. Of course, people also want AI that acts like a friend or expert and does amazing things. However, I don't believe the two worlds mix well. IMHO, AI substitutes a person working for you whereas traditional software is a tool that persons and AI use.
The experience can be vastly different than deeply configuring a system like a power user. My nontechnical, 87-years-old grandfather is putting together apps to help him with his language practice. He uses Google iirc. The chatbot is a familiar interface since his time working did overlap with IRC, email, early internet, yada yada.
I don’t want to necessarily argue about merit or quality, but I have seen that custom software can be accessible to a general audience.
> Normal end users want reliable software that does what they want it to do.
But how does that contradicts the idea of extendable software? If anything, extendable software will better do what the user wants it to do.
It's just right now we think of extending the software as if it's a complex operation. It looks to me like the article envisions a future, where extending your software is as simple as, say, creating a new google doc or opening a link.
It is doubtable, however, that such level of ease of extendibility can be achieved at all. There might be enough essential complexity, like answering lots of questions, which, I agree, most users won't be doing.
The vast majority of users buy the software that does what they want it to do right from the start. If you reflect on it, you will likely find that this is also what you do. That behavior is not just normal for software, though, it's the standard for almost any product. You have a certain problem or need, look around until you find something that solves the problem or satisfies the need, and then you might buy it.
Think about cars for comparison. Some people like tinkering with them and tuning them. However, most people look for the features they need or desire and buy the car that satisfies their requirements and budget best.
Sometimes extensibility is part of the requirements to solve a problem or fulfill a desire but normally it isn't.
I think people who don't tune their cars also have some very specific requests on what they miss. It's just they never articulate their requests, because the only way to satisfy them would be to spend lot's of time and resources on tinkering.
However, I can see another counter-argument to my claim: not every consumer has specific requests for the product they're buying! Sometimes people are just not sure what they want. In that case, yes, I can agree that customization doesn't help. Moreover, having a limited set of pre-defined products helps to educate a consumer on what their options even are.
So, if a large part of consumers are the ones that don't know exactly what they want, then yes, you're right. I guess the distribution of “know-what-they-want” vs. “don't” depends on the product, although I think generally it tends to be that most people usually don't know.
Anyway, thanks for the good argument! Thinking about other products and industries, as cars, really helped, I missed that.
reply