I think this is a more nuanced take on the situation. I would agree that folks who are directly impacted by an issue are more likely to be impacted by it. Original comment seemed too absolutist too me.

I think there are 22yo who can be impacted by the issue of taxes while being poor (Though they may end up on the other side of the argument). For example, issues of food stamps and medicare-for-all affect all ages. A 22yo might have a strong opinion in favor of taxation for these purposes. A conservative making an ad hominem argument on the basis of age in this case (e.g., that they are simply being manipulated by the radical left) would be clearly incorrect.

I also think, as more of a moral argument, you shouldn’t need to be directly impacted by something in order to support/oppose it. I am not on food stamps but I absolutely think we should have them (or perhaps “upgrade” it to UBI to avoid nonsense on what poor people are allowed to buy).

In any case, dismissing someone as simply being manipulated is not a good approach in general. It could be a good approach when we are specifically talking about the person overselling on confirmation bias from ChatGPT, but it is a poor way to change minds as a general tactic.

Is there any particular language I should adjust to avoid being “aggro”? I did say that I hated their argument. And I did call them hostile after their last sarcastic response to me trying to extend an olive branch.

Is that going too far? “Touch grass” is about the same level, I would think, but I’ve been wrong before and I’ll be wrong again.

Apparently, waving two hands instead of one hand.

Under no circumstances should you expect a random civilian from another country to be familiar with specific US military procedures, particularly when they are clinging to the wreckage of their ship to avoid drowning.

And this is besides the fact that shooting shipwreck survivors in the first place is a war crime, regardless of whether they were surrendering.

Everyone in the chain of command on this one needs to face prosecution.

If you enter into debates with weak ad hominem arguments about someone’s age, you aren’t going to change minds and you will be steamrolled by anyone with an understanding of the topic.

Skimming your recent posts, I don’t think our political views are particularly different, so it’s in both of our interests if you are using the best arguments possible on these topics. This was not an attack on you as a person, so your hostile response is unnecessary.

I suppose I did simplify your argument.

I’ll restate, then: it’s erroneous to say that any young person/22yo with a strong opinion on taxes is being manipulated. Although life experience may prevent naivete in some cases, I think it’s incorrect to make a bold assertion like that because older folks are capable of being manipulated and younger folks are capable of being discerning and having the critical thinking skills to avoid manipulation.

I would also take issue with your follow up on whether owning property impacts whether or not someone’s opinions on economic issues are well defined. I don’t think people need to be personally invested in an issue to have a nuanced opinion on it, though it can certainly help (and you definitely want to consider interested parties when it comes to property tax- i.e., before a city raises property taxes, they should take into consideration property owners with fixed incomes, who do tend to be 60+)

I get that you were just making a short comment and didn’t intend to go deep into the weeds on it, but I find these kinds of assumptions dangerous.

It’s a bad position to be in. If they crash it will be bad, but if they keep growing and then crash it could be worse.

I kinda hate the premise that young age automatically makes you stupid or your opinions a result of manipulation. Someone in their 60s can be just as stupid as a 22yo, and a 22yo is also capable of having nuanced thoughts about politics and taxation. “Young=naive” is a bad trap to fall into when evaluating political opinions and feeds into the old adage about people becoming conservative as they get older.

I think this person is just stupid on their own, regardless of their age.

Also a valid point - it’s not necessarily a lack of options that’s preventing people from buying more efficient cars. “Lack of options” is more in play in choices to use public transport or drive

According to Chenoweth, the number refers to peak, not cumulative participation. She also says 3.5% is not absolute – even non-violent campaigns can succeed with less participation, according to her 2020 update to the rule.

That’s the opposite of what her update said (well, it’s rather misleading). Her update noted cases where nonviolence failed even when they beat 3.5% - including one case that achieved 6% participation. She did note that most successful attempts didn’t need to reach 3.5%, but also that reaching that is no longer a guarantee.

Her original research only went to 2006, there’s been a few recent cases which broke the rule. Like she said in her update, history isn’t necessarily a predictor of future results. I think there are also some very recent cases like Nepal where 95% of the movement is nonviolent, but violence at the very end of the movement tips the scale. (IIRC something similar happened with the Iranian revolution, though the results of that were decidedly undemocratic in the long run). There’s some nuance with Nepal as well- the organizers did not choose to go for violence, it was largely an unplanned mob reaction.

Based on the totality of her research (which is publicly accessible and based on publicly accessible data), I still think nonviolence is more likely to achieve success than violence, but it really annoys me when articles like this one overstate the effects. It makes it really easy to tear apart the argument.

I haven’t seen 40k, but at least near me, if you’re willing to live way out in the country there’s still a few around the 60k to 70k range.

The tricky part is finding a house like that AND finding a job in the area. Remote work would be spotty if you are relying on satellite internet

That sounds tricky to implement, but I’m not strictly opposed. I’ve always been more of the opinion that some streets should just be converted to people-only altogether, at least in my downtown (there’s one street that gets closed to traffic once/week for the farmer’s market anyways…).

Did you read what I wrote? I am in favor of Kei trucks. I just want them to put in better crumple zones and airbags first.

Do you disagree with airbags? I really don’t know what you’re getting at. I know you threw on the /s at the end but that still doesn’t make your post make sense.

Worse, it’s a few megabytes of selfhosted storage. Data on a server you own that you are not allowed to access.

That’s true of many rules/razors… I wonder if there’s a rule/razor about not putting too much faith in things like murphys law and occams razor.

I’m not going to fault you for that - but do you think you should receive an award for the work you didn’t do? Even if you only use the car on the “easy” parts of the race that nobody cares about?

In the case of this particular game, perhaps the bulk of the creative work was done by humans. But if the GOTY committee isn’t confident with drawing a line between what work is OK to offload onto an AI and what work isn’t, then I think it’s fair for then to say this year that any generative AI use is a disqualifier.

You and I can say with ease that an implementation of a basic swap function (c=a, a=b, b=c) doesn’t require any creative work and has been done to death, so there’s no shame in copypasteing something from stackoverflow or chatgpt into your own code to save time.

But it’s harder to gauge that for more complex things. Especially with art - where would you draw the line? Reference material? Concept art? Background textures or 3d models of basic props (random objects in the scene like chairs, trees, etc)?

I don’t think there’s a clear answer for that. You might have an answer you think is correct, and I might have one as well, but I think it will be difficult and time consuming to achieve consensus in the game development community.

So, the most efficient answer for now is to have any generative AI be a disqualifier.

I don’t see the point in boycotting something that’s free and doesn’t make money off of selling my data. I suppose you aren’t obligated to donate to it, but that was already true.

I suppose OTOH, I’m not pro-tankie, but I at least prefer tankies to the fascists and authoritarian capitalists (or whatever you want to call them) that run mainstream media. Harm reduction is the name of the game IMO, not finding a platform with a perfect set of political values aligning with yours (at least for me, I haven’t run into many leftists who are also committed to nonviolence due to pragmatic reasons). The russia/ukraine stuff in that thread you link does look nasty, on the other other hand

I have an old car so I burn CDs all the time. After streaming music on shuffle for awhile, I find it refreshing to listen to an album all the way through.

The last CD I burned happened to be legally obtained music off of Bandcamp (a mix of some Trocadero songs).

Though of course a lot of the time, the songs I burn come from other sources.

I find that people who own big trucks are also happy when they get the opportunity to use the big truck to help others move furniture. It’s like a boat - always better to know someone who owns a boat rather than own the boat

She was specifically talking about high speeds on the interstate - if there is a toddler or pedestrian in this situation, then even something as small ad a motorcycle could cause a deadly crash.

I am also anti-big car, but if there are things that the manufacturer can do to make these kei cars safer (e.g., increase crumple zones and add airbags) then I don’t see why they shouldn’t do that. Those are reasonable asks

In fairness, these cars were designed for environments with narrow, winding highways, not large straightaways like US interstates. They’re going to be better at sharp turns and fast braking than an F150.

I think as long as drivers go in aware of the risks (like motorcyclists) it should be fine, but I don’t think we should ignore that those risks exist. I would absolutely get one of these cars, but I am also a careful driver and don’t have to get on the interstate for my daily commute. That doesn’t fit every US driver.

I’m not going to fault someone for driving to work in a car, but I certainly wouldn’t call them the winner of a marathon even if they only drove for a few minutes of that marathon.

There’s a difference between something that runs the race for you (LLM AI) and something that simply helps you do what you are already doing (I suppose photoshop is the equivalent of drinking gatorade).

As of December 22 at 22:30 CST, it’s currently available at the internet archive. If that goes down and someone needs it, let me know, I have it saved.