naevaTheRat

I'm not a usaian so I might be missing something but isn't the most radical thing this guy has said something like: "I think people who have literally too much money to spend should have too much money to spend (smaller) so we can feed people and give them medical care"?

Does the mayor of new york even have the power to move on that? I would've assumed they like direct bureaucracy providing infrastructure and chair council meetings and shit.

It's pretty cringe to see handwringing over this guy make it all the way over the Pacific. He's a mayoral candidate, for people outside his council area or whatever isn't this a huge nothingburger?

When you get to university take a couple of electives in philosophy, including philosophy of science.

Mate if you're trying to argue that the C suite and board of exxon should be hanging in a gibbet in the harbour I'm fucking here for it.

The greed of the wealthy is impossible to satiate and that is the source of all lack of essential resources in our modern age.

Actually good charitable causes shouldn't depend on the whims of the rich anyway. We should tax people and decide democratically what matters.

Produce studies saying to say it’s not harmful, or be quiet.

My dude, that is not how epistemology works. You cannot prove a negative empirically.

Yes, the photo is peach syrup from canned peaches subbing in for water, and a coconut milk base.

Just as long as you keep the water to starch/agar ratio it will be approximately right. Very high or very low amounts of sugar or fat will throw things off, but if you're making the jelly with fruit juice/syrup + some sugar to taste it will be about right

Produce studies and I swear to god if it's that one where they say kids are scroiling Instagram for 9 hours a day when they report using it as a messenging application I will reach through the screen and strangle you.

Legislation should not be based on vibes ffs. I think Mark Zuckerburg should be hung in a public square and skinned alive for the evil he has wrought with shit like aiding genocide but there is not sufficient evidence that social media, which covers everything from usenet to lemmy to Instagram to youtube, causes harms warranting age based bans. This is a world where we allow coca cola and factory farming, "it's probably bad for some people some of the time" is clearly not the bar for criminalisation.

Whole thing is a moral panic. No good evidence exists of harms, but nobody needs evidence to believe what they want to.

You could like ban algorithmic endless feeds if that was bad, you could enforce content moderation standards if bad content was the issue. But no, this is just surveillance state expansion and traditional media handwringing being cheerfully assisted by the feckless "think of the children" crowd.

If you need stuff printed I, or someone more local, would be more than happy to help. Otherwise all the knowledge and tools are available for free.

It's not "shackled" they are completely different technologies.

Imaging diagnosis assistance it something like computer vision -> feature extraction -> some sort of classifier

Don't be tricked by the magical marketing term AI. That's like assuming that a tick tac toe algorithm is the same thing as a spam filter because they're both "AI".

Also medical imaging stuff makes heaps of errors or extracts insane features like the style of machine used to image. They're getting better but image analysis is a relatively tractable problem.

Every single time I have tried to extract information from them in a field I know stuff about it has been wrong.

When the Australian government tried to use them for making summaries in every single case it was worse than the human summary and in many it was actively destructive.

Play around with your own local models if you like, but whatever you do DO NOT TRY TO LEARN FROM THEM they have no consideration towards truth. You will actively damage your understanding of the world and ability to reason.

Sorry, no shortcuts to wisdom.