punchmesan

What makes you think it's willful ignorance over garden-variety ignorance? Being incorrect and thinking you are correct is different from purposefully keeping yourself ignorant.

I have no horse in this race, and willfully being ignorant and spreading disinformation about trans topics willfully is indeed transphobic and warrants aggressive shutdowns, like the comment I'm replying to. But unless I'm missing something I don't see the evidence of bad intent here? It just seemed like a bit of a leap.

Holy shit I would take this over an open floor plan any day. I dream of having my own quasi-isolated space.

Love the idea! What if instead of stakeholders voting on everything you implemented a "steering committee" style model. Stakeholders meet/organize at some cadence to make larger decisions and decide the direction to "steer" the instance and the smaller decisions made in service of the direction decided by committee are left to the admins (decided/maintained by committee). The committee would have veto power over those decisions.

Just thinking of communication overhead and how the more is decided by committee upfront the less agile you can be.

They work just fine with real-debrid.

Yeah, it's trivial work for a capable AI. It isn't farfetched to envision an AI tracking down your alt accounts by analyzing writing style, post/comment topics, and various other bits of commonality.

My knee-jerk reaction is that I'm generally against it. I'm all for AI in a variety of applications, but I don't participate in discussion in online places to give free training days to corporate LLM's. If somehow it could be guaranteed that it was only used in open models I suppose I would feel a little better, but the second issue in my mind is that even careful people leave a trail of identifying breadcrumbs sprinkled across their posting history. A human having to sift through thousands of posts and comments will have a much harder time putting pieces together than an AI will. So I see it as a privacy concern mostly.

I'm in IT too. My experience is that if you use Linux at home and Windows at work you just end up skilled at both. At one point I was even using a Macbook at work (wouldn't have even been a consideration if WSL was just a little better), using a Windows jump server or a VM for my Windows-y ops, and I became skilled at all 3 OS's.

All of that is to say that your skill won't decrease if Windows is still being used, especially if you're using it in a professional context.

Well as far as I understand, this discussion is about voting and not prosecution. A prosecutor's job is to seek the greatest penalty they think they can feasibly get, so of course they're going to focus on charges that carry the greatest penalty. A voter's job, in the context of presidential elections, is to choose between a series of power-hungry hyenas to lead the Executive branch of the government. Not voting is counter-productive and under the current system voting third-party is also counter-productive, so a voter has an incentive to consider all of the "crimes", and even the good sprinkled amongst them, and not tunnel-vision on the worst.

So debating the "lesser charges" could not be more relevant, because who you vote for matters and the government does a heck of a lot more than support Israel. If I follow your line of false equivalence, I can only envision 2 conclusions:

1. Who you vote for does not matter at all, just flip a coin.
2. There's no point in voting at all, leave the decision to everyone else.

Yes, the current system is corrupt and is awful, and it needs to change, but in the meantime elections are still held and decisions are still made about things like education funding, women's bodily autonomy, trans rights, student debt, and so on and so on. Saying nothing else matters because the political parties that have a duopoly on power support Israel's genocide campaign is short-sighted at best. As far as I can tell what you're advocating for is voter apathy, and I fail to see how that's productive.

And nobody in this thread at least is arguing against that. You seem to have taken the position that because both parties support Israel in their genocide of Palestinians there can be no other measures worth judging them by. That they are equal. And the "both sides" argument is objectively a false equivalence. It's not as though a woman's bodily autonomy no longer matters because Israel is leading a genocidal campaign in Gaza, for instance.

It is precisely because there are other issues in the world and in the country that there is a lesser evil. Even if we disagree on degrees of "lesser" or even who is "lesser", everything is not so one dimensional as to be able to label both political parties as equally evil when there are other evils that need to be piled on and added to the scale. Ignoring those evils is ignoring the victims of those evils.

Not to be reductionist of the genocide in Gaza, it is undoubtedly evil and both parties deserve to be labeled as such for supporting it, but to speak as though that's the only issue in this world and the only yardstick we can use to measure both parties is itself reductionist. And the reason they maintain their power is that the system is so structured as to ensure it. And that's not to say there is nothing we can do about that (for one, elimination of FPTP voting), but as of the 2024 election the reality was that only one of those two parties would win. And to claim that recognizing that in itself is the sole cause of it is silly.

In the US there are only two party choices that matter. We are forced to vote for evil and must choose the lesser. I agree with you in principal but Trump is an especially egregious choice.