When I was a kid my father would always mute the ads, which was annoying to me because the images still demanded my attention and it was frustrating not knowing what they said. Now I don’t watch TV and know how to use adblockers so it’s a mute point.
Arguments (especially political/ideological ones) framed as personal advice
I assume it’s ultimately serious (they want to drop the pretense that it’s about the value of the life of a fetus) but a use of irony poisoning on some level. Some real zero self awareness assholes regardless.
Supposedly it was coined by some right wing influencer and went viral
stfu
I’ll just say again that for the original comment that this is about, leaving aside anything I wrote, that demand is not justified, and I don’t regret pushing back on it.
There are conversations where it’s better to just leave it, but I don’t see this as one of them.
Hm, worrying. I wonder what the gap might be, like what could make an adult citizen not a ‘qualified elector’
IMO most of what was going on with inflation going up and down was because of Jerome Powell anyway, it’s not like either Trump or Biden have a problem with him. The only candidate in recent memory to even acknowledge rising wealth inequality as an issue was Bernie Sanders. Resolving the country’s financial problems with endless corporate welfare is just the standard bipartisan consensus.
I am pretty sure those voting rights are also guaranteed by the federal constitution, so probably not
which is about how women have to deal with this bullshit all the time online
The point has been made. If you have more to say about it, go ahead.
You don’t need to participate, if this isn’t the subject that you want to talk about.
The unspoken thing I guess being that I shouldn’t participate if that isn’t something I have anything to say about. It sounds like something you want is for discussions that can be considered to be about women’s issues to be narrowly framed as such, and think there’s something wrong with engaging with the discussion in a way that doesn’t do this. I think this is much less reasonable than anything the comic itself is saying. There is a big difference between talking about the same issue but in a broader way, and remarking something overtly irrelevant and hostile like “what about circumcision”. That isn’t to say that spaces exclusively for narrowly framed discussion about women’s issues shouldn’t exist, but I don’t see a reason this comment thread has to be one, or why not considering it to be one should be regarded as offensive.
The men replying are almost never showing support, they’re minimizing the issue, or they’re trying to co-opt the thread.
To me, the comment in question didn’t seem to be doing that. The point I’m trying to make is to object to the idea that it is categorically doing that, given the context. It seems like a divisive way of deciding what is bad behavior, to condemn any statement made in response to discussion about problems faced by one group that is not specifically about the struggles of that group, regardless of anything else about the statement.
This is a specific complaint about how any time women try to talk about women’s issues in a forum that may contain men, those men engage in disingenuous whataboutism.
If you would rather expand on how that goes or the ways in which this is predominantly a women’s issue, feel free to take this opportunity instead of responding to what else I’m saying.
It’s more that society should have asked nicely instead of trying to manipulate me into it with years of brainwashing and coercive economics, so I made it a priority to participate as little as possible and that’s on them. Want a functional system, treat people with respect.
The comic is about how when people speak online online about women’s issues, dudes keep trying to make it about dudes.
This is a legitimate complaint in the situations where the topic is uniquely a women’s issue, and people are trying to redirect the conversation to something that really isn’t the same thing and is a separate issue so talking about that means you aren’t talking about the first thing anymore. But the meta issue of someone trying to talk about one group’s problems and getting hit by whataboutism, seems arguably more universal and might not be specifically a women’s issue, so saying something along the lines of “yeah this happens to us too it sucks”, could be supportive and not about shutting up discussion of the original topic.
And it’s arguably in the process of dying itself right now, in quality if not in user count yet.
The comic is about the meta issue so it’s not quite the same imo
One time I was biking and someone coming the other way smiled at me. There was nothing to the interaction beyond that few seconds but somehow it was just such a powerful smile it made my whole week and I still remember it.
I would say, whichever one is polling highest, who has signaled support in any way for the issue. Other things about them don’t matter because they aren’t going to win anyway. In this case a lot of third party votes for a single candidate are probably better than the same number of votes spread across different candidates because it looks more like an organized voting block to politicians looking at the numbers in retrospect, who are the reason to vote at all if you are voting third party, you are trying to communicate via those numbers about how your vote can be obtained or lost.
If it wasn’t clear, I am not claiming that AI is better than a person at summarizing complex information.
The AI summaries were judged significantly weaker across all five metrics used by the evaluators, including coherency/consistency, length, and focus on ASIC references. Across the five documents, the AI summaries scored an average total of seven points (on ASIC’s five-category, 15-point scale), compared to 12.2 points for the human summaries.
The focus on the (now-outdated) Llama2-70B also means that “the results do not necessarily reflect how other models may perform” the authors warn.
to assess the capability of Generative AI (Gen AI) to summarise a sample of public submissions made to an external Parliamentary Joint Committee inquiry, looking into audit and consultancy firms
In the final assessment ASIC assessors generally agreed that AI outputs could potentially create more work if used (in current state), due to the need to fact check outputs, or because the original source material actually presented information better. The assessments showed that one of the most significant issues with the model was its limited ability to pick-up the nuance or context required to analyse submissions.
The duration of the PoC was relatively short and allowed limited time for optimisation of the LLM.
So basically this study concludes that Llama2-70B with basic prompting is not as good as humans at summarizing documents submitted to the Australian government by businesses, and its summaries are not good enough to be useful for that purpose. But there are some pretty significant caveats here, most notably the relative weakness of the model they used (I like Llama2-70B because I can run it locally on my computer but it’s definitely a lot dumber than ChatGPT), and how summarization of government/business documents is likely a harder and less forgiving task than some other things you might want a generated summary of.
I had one in most of the apartments I lived in, but I was always having problems with them and needing to contact the landlord to fix it (some of this was my fault but still). Now that I have my own place I’m not going to install one, I don’t want to spend money if the result is mostly to get to maintain yet another thing, just to avoid shaking a drain trap over the trash every once in a while.