We only needed a couple for research, and it shouldn't have been enough for people to go this ham with it. Should have been one big effort like the large hadron collider. The rest could be local stuff so people can run for their own use case. Basic storage should mostly be a local effort as well, but local smart environment hype got usurped by non-local environment connectivity, cause basic digital privacy stopped being a concern for too many regular people some time ago. Frankly the instrumental convergence turning development into to corpo frontend slop doesn't help anything.

All technological and social development will be usurped by the Epstein class until we fix our social structure, and nobody wants to listen to the academics on that front.

Not the MBA economic magic circle around neoliberal corpo capitalist soothsayers who are all playing ball on the "don't disrupt the hierarchy" court.

As a fan of science and technology, I really hope we can work with actual experts in finding a way to grow a new system out of the current flailing corpse acting as a system.

Like every other valuable thing for humanity, it is being bastardized to fit the fantasy of the Epstein class parasites.

so why exclude men who are made fun of for feminine expression?

there are definitely socialized negative biases that specifically women deal with, but being exclusionary doesn't actually help the cause, it just narrows the audience that is allowed to relate to the cause.

and it applies in gender neutral situations, like drawing literally anything in jr.high/highschool would grant the name ____fucker, no matter the benign nature of the variable being drawn.

it's a good little rule that doesn't need to devolve into a cultural battle about which group gets to identify with it more.

i constantly talk about the atheist/mra vs feminist war which just put everyone on the defensive, destroying active efforts in fighting groups like the heritage foundation, who are now doing unimaginable systemic harm to women through destruction of academic spaces and scientific efforts around women's health largely propped up by religious fundamentalist efforts.

sometimes you have to be like "there's something specific about this group which we don't want being lost in the current conversation," but also sometimes it's good to be less rigid about which generalized group is allowed to identify with or benefit from progressive ideals.

I hate how people getting scammed by near monopolistic monoliths casually being fraudulent in their advertisements is them being "idiots" rather than just victims who haven't spent their whole life navigating the myriad ways billionaires are researching to more elegantly fuck us. Why consumer protection is supposed to be a thing, why anti-trust is supposed to be a thing, and people are trapped between fascists and a "tactical vote" alternative that has done very little to stop the fascists from casually dismantling these protections.

Good job media for always individualizing the problem and blaming the victims.

Many men's assumptions about men are similarly a problem when applied to me, for the same reasons of framing the binary and existing gender stereotypes, while sometimes useful, is often over applied and overly made real by shared affirmation.

To answer your question, I'm not implying intent by the author, rather just stating that the way it has been framed, consciously or otherwise, is relating a very general experience as if you should expect it to be gendered. We can decide to construct it like that, or we can make the framing more salient and fix a lot of the inevitable downstream issues of attempting to communicate when people are making expected differences more salient and real that shared (even if slightly different). Experiences that we can collectively identify and change.

Again, if atheists could have kept focus on countering groups like the heritage foundation, rather than defending against weird assumptions about their general group that they are being inappropriate related to, or if the lessons learned from academic feminism can be applied by other groups rather than being devolved into nonsensical associations with SJWs and weird claims like "trying to make circumcision illegal in the USA means you hate women because FGM is a more important issue". Further devolves into "being an atheist or supporting causes that help men means you hate women and want to destroy advances in women's rights."

Which I think we can all agree is stupid, and not representative of any serious work being done by academic feminists.

Would be an easy voice to stir up division, and make defensive arguments built around bad framing problems and associations more salient than the actual issues these groups should be making salient. Such as the heritage foundation and other extremely important obstacles that we should all be finding ways to cooperate against.

I assume that noting one party excludes the other because I see it like "we have blue cups and red cups. Be careful the blue cups are hot." And then "oww i burnt my hands on the red cups, they are also hot!"

Followed by "i didn't say the red cups couldn't be hot, only that blue ones were."

I think someone chiming in on the original statement with "all the cups are hot, just generally be careful." shouldn't be a contentious addition.

Hopefully that comparison makes my framing problem more clear.

TLDR: how we bound things matter, most of society is social constructs. biologically relevant bounding (gender binary) is both not absolute (intersex) and individually contextualizable during development and social reification (genderfluid). deciding as law that there are only two genders is a purely social reification move, and not actually representative of reality.

constantly gendering/bounding things for no reason does weird bad things for the social construct people build and make socially real. again, this is a vulnerability for divide and conquer tactics. we don't want louder general voices to dominate over important signal of groups experiencing systemic problems, but that is a different issue from defending unnecessary and unhelpful framing that continues to be used against us with very real effects.

-- "A woman saying things are hard for women isn’t making any comments about whether or not it’s hard for men" what is the role of bounding this statement to half of the population if not to exclude it from the other half? the entire point of gendering is lost if we recognize this. please understand i'm very generally against unnecessary bounding for what i see as important reasons that affect us all.

"black lives matter" is a very american movement, "all lives matter" might make sense to say, a pakistani-american who also experiences systemic problems and would like to join a collective effort for change, but is being excluded. in this context, most are willing to ignore that plight because of the redneck/corpo american using "all lives matter," as a signal to their white supremacy group is actually enough of a problem that the backlash towards ALM has weight in that setting. personally i think "black lives matter too" would have been a better and more inclusive bounding that isn't abusable by opportunistic bad actors. but we can't cooperate for that level of nuance around the words we use i guess, it's too 'annoying' i guess. although comprehending framing is a much more important use of energy than people seem to believe. entirely unnecessary progressive exclusivity is literally harming us all.

my emphasis is on progressives unnecessarily being -weirdly- exclusive about every issue, even very general issues, and then cause a fuss when any of the 'wrong' people want to take part in the bandwagon and affect change. "divide and conquer" is THE rule for stopping collective action for change.

why i brought up the feminist/atheist stuff. the fact that progressives aren't allowed to cooperate is a huge problem. if the post was "men get made fun of for everything, might as well do what you want." i would have NO issue with women/NBs going "why is this being gendered lol? that's such a general problem."

and instead of people going "ha ha yeah i guess that is a pretty general experience." you get a big ol' "if you feel excluded, too bad."

"why does it always need to be about men" is generalizing a lot of vague unrelated contexts to one that we defined very specifically.

there's a reason i stated "there are definitely socialized negative biases that specifically women deal with" because not all problems do need to be generalized, and sometimes gendering it could be relevant for some actual reasons.

"men are from mars, women are from venus." kind of thinking is just... classic patriarchy? why are we defending it so hard?

at this point i'd get into social constructs, and how we frame things is incredibly important for things like, stopping progressives from unnecessarily being divided for stupid shit that doesn't matter while fascist chuds are enabled in enacting systemic violence towards women (axing sciences and women's health stuff, as stated,) and everyone else. while everyone is spending all of their energy trying to navigate the fucked up framing that divides people unnecessarily and encourages those groups to be antagonistic unnecessarily.

when "this applies generally" could easily consume as little energy as "ha ha yeah this is unnecessarily gendered." which, in recognizing, allows us to hold a better general idea of the complexity of the world and experience.

again, the inertia of really bad social constructs are still implanted in society. isn't deconstructing that supposed to be a big part of feminism? that youtube video essay i linked is actually pretty good, on emphasizing around this issue, but as i pointed out with the atheism/feminism thing, this is a very real and tangible problem that i'm trying to address while also noting the context of not deflating some actual specific issue that is being made salient.

that being said, if you build a system for dealing with a problem that mostly affects one gender, being exclusionary is going to cause unnecessary friction, you cause inevitable tension as your group bounding become less reliable at full scale. ignoring the edge cases doesn't make them disappear, and leads to subgroup antagonism that was entirely preventable.

there's nothing wrong about making a post about girls, but there's also nothing wrong with going "that's a weirdly gendered framing on a very general experience."

group specific "do what you want," also causes weird problems, because to some people this message could be easily read as gender specific (else why gendered?) and "do what you want" becomes what it does for the least thoughtful and most aggressive of any group, usually leading to more division and antagonism because we've weirdly bounded our interactions to be so strictly group specific that we just aren't allowed relating to each-other, and we can now define punching down as punching up because context doesn't matter, only the salient boundings we've defined as truth. anecdotally, you get things like a manager telling their employee "you're lucky you already worked here when i was hired because i don't hire men," which is just one of my personal experiences. this doesn't mean women aren't systemically disadvantaged in some hiring areas, but i don't think getting at the pan-demi-autistic barista(ask me about my thoughts on gendered languages,) who grew up in poverty is really "punching up." it does make fighting for equality more disheartening when this becomes a general experience in progressive areas.

i really REALLY don't care to be defined and seen as "MAN" whenever people start their assumptions about me, and the less baggage we randomly invent in people's minds the better. anyone who has been ill-treated purely for group association rather than their actual behaviour knows this feeling. if you feel unnecessary gendered/grouped doesn't harm you, then maybe you aren't so familiar with the oppression of systemic framing, and the people actually affected by it. all of whom i think deserve to be free from this really shitty framing tools we seem to be incapable of growing out of as a species.

remember, most of our world is socially constructed. a lot of what is "absolutely just how the world is" falls apart more quickly than the MAGA "two genders" very inaccurately framed argument under any scientific scrutiny. AKA, it's not that simple, and pretending it is hurts everyone that doesn't fit your neat low-energy boundings, and failing to properly frame and interact with the complexity of the world leads to systemic failures that harm us all.

i'm just trying my best, and have been while people spent the past two decades fighting rather than stopping the heritage foundation and other such actual problems that are actually affecting us all, which we need to be able to successfully collect and communicate around without devolving into different preferred boundings over-ruling the shared reality that we are all creating and growing into.

Can someone be sacked for these stupid fear mongering presentations of what should be fairly banal topics? If there was actual reason to worry, we would point out the constant remarkable disasters which should discourage you.

"caused by AI"

If I ask AI how to make coffee for a person, and the AI temperature is set high, and it tells me to add cyanide, I would not suggest that the person's death was "caused by AI."

I would be responsible for how i act without thinking or double checking on whether or not the AI was confabulating or offering information that could be externally verified.

Stop yelling at computers when the actual reason is either murderous intent or murderous incompetence.

Accountability for the people in charge.

Great power should come with great accountability, not freedom from accountability.

Almost like Amazon should have some responsibility in properly vetting their sellers. This isn't the only case of bad quality bootlegs on Amazon. They have no decent incentive to fix it if they are making more money from it. It doesn't help when the blame is filtered through the smokescreen of ephemeral merchants.

The wording of every single article has such an anti AI slant, and I feel the propaganda really working this past half year. Still nobody cares about advertising companies, but LLMs are the devil.

Existing datasets still exist. The bigger focus is in crossing modalities and refining content.

Why is the negative focus always on the tech and not the political system that actually makes it a possible negative for people?

I swear, most of the people with heavy opinions don't even know half of how the machines work or what they are doing.

again, the issue isn't the technology, but the system that forces every technological development into functioning "in the name of increased profits for a tiny few."

that has been an issue for the fifty years prior to LLMs, and will continue to be the main issue after.

removing LLMs or other AI will not fix the issue. why is it constantly framed as if it would?

we should be demanding the system adjust for the productivity increases we've already seen, as well to what we expect in the near future. the system should make every advancement a boon for the general populace, not the obscenely wealthy few.

even the fears of propaganda. the wealthy can already afford to manipulate public discourse beyond the general public's ability to keep up. the bigger issue is in plain sight, but is still being largely ignored for the slant that "AI is the problem."

Good, but misses emphasis on market capture, which is where they use existing wealth to undercut a whole ecosystem until they become entrenched, and switching back becomes unfeasable, which is when they take off the friend mask and put on the corpo fascist mask and say "git gud and cry about it, peasants."

Great comic though

It's almost like we need an entirely new legal framework to ensure the non wealthy a standard of living while being continuously devalued over time by me technological developments. Artists already sell their souls to survive in this "market."

the whole separatist narrative is being grown and pushed by these chuds. ATLAS network and their cancerous cohorts (think heritage foundation in the states) has been making this into a reality for some weeeeird reason.

almost like creating some kind of weird idea that albertans are being trapped by evil communist canada, and might need some help becoming free?

canada needs to respond to this as the threat and assault that it is.

They always focus on real estate value. Who of that under 45 demographic lowest earners can afford anything but survival and renting? Why is there absolutely no mention of the failure of antitrust? Brand conglomerates jacking up priced for pure profit because what are people going to do, use local goods from shops that are gouged for their basic operation costs? I work at a small local place, and I'm pretty sure the owners are as tired and depressed as the staff right now. Working harder than ever, and losing more money than we make.

All we can ethically do is shout and cry and be noticed, but the last few decades show how much that has stopped the trend.

Something has to change or riots will be inevitable. Automation isn't going to go backwards, and it's absurd the working class hasn't seen any improvement in their lives by this point.

"look the guy who spends all day every day saying things said a cringe thing once! stop listening to him about israel and billionaires!"

there's a huge hasan smear campaign by corpo "democrats" right now, because obviously he's the real danger for some reason and not the cheeto rapist in power.

when people are calling democrats controlled opposition, this is what they mean.

remember hasan's dog? don't think about the entrenched democrats actively enabling the fascist takeover. don't think about their support for funding israel's genocide of gaza. what if his dog possibly potentially had a shock collar because the way it moved once! keep hasan on the defensive so he isn't talking about israel or billionaires!

etc.

i definitely am not the biggest hasan fan, but i find myself defending him regularly from absolute bullshit.

if there's was ever a time to be picky about hasan's choice of emotionally biased statements on non-issues, this is really not it.

You don't think this guy was as deeply embedded with bullies as possible?

Have you seen his school rant about leaving messes for janitors because it's their job to clean?

That's not the style of a weird autistic kid being bullied, he has just been empowered in his really wormy style of evil and privilege.

I hate how much I'm seeing the current administration used for the argument "we need to bring bullies back" when the bullies are often the wealthy privileged who look down on the weird peasants and their lack of successful social signaling.

Reality.

I mean it's not actual "full self drive" to begin with. It's a lame impersonation of more advanced self driving vehicles that aren't even being sold yet. That doesn't matter to the elon fans though.

The lie that actually gets people killed, while also tainting the overall perception of autonomous vehicles. Thanks elon.

... Basically the day it was created.

I swear the actual gain from prime is virtually indecipherable. The less you understand it, the less you can actually complain about what you are paying for.

It also does not boost my confidence when they use deceptive patterns to sneak you back into prime, or keep you from leaving.

The average person doesn't give a hoot though, and will get actively upset at you for pointing out deceptive patterns when it's a brand they use, so I we can probably expect things to get worse whenever physically possible.