I mostly agree with your post. I take exception to the barely works part. Either the code works or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t work, fix it. If it works, don’t fix it.

If you “fix” working code, you are spending time adding no value to the project. You could even argue you’re adding negative value because the people who are used to the code working the way it was now have a surprise.

For those that didn’t pick it up, this is sarcasm

I mean you can exist in this world if you want to. It is more fun than the truth which is sad and boring.

Most people really do care and have good intentions, but are too overworked and too uneducated to pull apart the propaganda that’s being pushed to them 24/7.

The oligarchs didn’t win when Trump got elected the second time. The won when they got control over the media. That was a while back.

Good point ☝️

Also batman didn’t change the systemic issues with Gotham.

I upvoted, but these kinds of posts make me uncomfortable. Luigi was a wealthy crypto bro working though a mental crisis. Luigi is not lefty batman.

I am very happy about the discussions his actions are creating and the overreaction from the upper class, but I am not sure it is a good idea to glorify Luigi.

Yeah I was confused by the article when they said they would regret it. Yeah if they cared, but they don’t.

What price should cable be? Who gives a shit, 100 dollars. There I did, supreme Court’s justices can do it too.

I don’t get the “take off your shoes” part. Is this a meme I have missed?

I have used LLMs before and they are occasionally wrong, seems like you don’t disagree. I don’t see how someone who isn’t deeply familiar with LLMs would be obviously tipped off that this post is a shit post. As for the graphs, who knows, Google probably already has that working. I’ve seen LLMs make up songs before too.

AI would never write this.

Why not? I figure you could train an AI to write this. I could see a Google engineer messing up and producing a bad AI. GPT2 engineers has made this mistake before.

The fact that you are believing it doesn’t speak to the danger of AI as much as it speaks to the gullibility of people.

This is kind of like saying “the problem with nuclear bombs is that people are too easy to evaporate at high temperatures, not the bombs themselves”. Yeah, that is true, but it’s really hard to make people less gullible. I wouldn’t say LLM’s and AI are bad or we should stop using them. But I think people like you need to understand that the average person is not on your level, and you need to slow your roll.

If I said “obama made a law to put babies in woodchippers”…

I don’t think this is a good comparison, because Obama has been around for a while and most people believe Obama wouldn’t do that. Now if Obama went from being a nobody to president in a day and then someone told me the about the woodchipper law. I would be unsure and have to double check. It wouldn’t be obvious. Likewise, since LLMs are relatively new to most people, it’s going to take a while before most people figure out what is a normal mistake by an LLM vs an obviously faked mistake by a shit poster.

Ok, your not the original person. Is this an obvious shit post in your opinion?

Because if it isn’t obvious how am I supposed to know this is a shit post or not?

How is this an obvious shit post? I am here to learn.

Do you ever feel like we will be the last generation to know anything?

Anyone got any more of that context?

Good and dark

It’s a problem of coordinating a mass switch.

Ok, so I don’t want to use up my one question, so I will just assume your position is that if we had one fascist leader and everyone else was a leftist who agreed on which candidate they would want to lead them, then the leftists wouldn’t be able to do whatever to figure that out and the one and only fascists leader would stay in charge forever. Got it.

You really should vote for the lesser evil, because your opinion of the people you agree with is very low. By your own logic, you’re are already screwed.

Now it’s that polls you just dreamed up that nobody is asking that are supposed to provide the mechanism for coordinating a switch.

Hey, if you have a general argument for why polling wont work, why didn’t you use that instead of just asserting that it wouldn’t without explaining (rhetorical question does not count)? That is why I am trying to figure out why you think that. The only way I know how to do that is by trying to figure out what wording is causing you issues.

Before I do: are you confident enough in that attempt that you’re ok with it being your very last one?

Yes, stop edging me. Any question I ask you, you will probably provide another evasive answer to. Anyone reading this thread will see that plainly. Please add more weight to my arguments.

I want to hear your response to this: Why would polls worded like “has most favorable opinion of?” or “most ideologically aligned with?" not work to detect a consensus of a single leftist candidate and why wouldn’t people then vote for that candidate?

Polling as in “intends to vote for” or polling as in “has a favorable opinion of?”

We could try “has most favorable opinion of?” or “most ideologically aligned with?”

I feel like you are hinting at the possibility of not only a leftist majority but a majority interest in a specific candidate and we would be too dumb to figure that out. Is that your position?

You’re not going to find some clever solution that allows you to bypass the problem of coordinating a mass switch, that problem is fundamental.

Hey, ancient wisdom person, you need to be able to explain why the problem is fundamental and not solvable. I don’t see it. And all that ancient wisdom does you no good politically if you can’t impart it.

This is tiresome.

I agree, please stop making bad arguments so we can stop this thread or maybe I can learn something.

So, in your mind, if someone did this favorability poll you want, and it showed, say, 60% favorability for the Green Party, you would vote for them, and you imagine that the majority of Democratic voters would all spontaneous switch their votes over together?

Not Democratic voters (assuming you mean the party). Just voters.

If you’re a Democrat and you feel like the Green Party has a candidate polling at a majority that represents your interests more than the Democratic candidate, why would you vote for the Democratic candidate instead? It goes against your interests. I know some Democrats are brain damaged, but I think that is only a small percentage (1 - 3 %).

This is like saying the majority of the population is leftist and has a chance at a bloodless revolution, but they decide to not take it because of shits and giggles.

Or a poll that shows favorability over voting.

Your argument boils down to “We would need a thing that easily could exist and maybe currently doesn’t exist and that’s why this is an unsolvable problem.”

It was a counter to this statement.

When polls ask people who they intend to vote for, they would tell them that they intend to vote for the Democrats, because they consider the Greens nonviable.

But I now that I am re-reading it I see that I had misinterpreted it. I thought you were implying that polls only ask questions about voting and not option. This was my bad. Sorry.

The poll would have to be about a specific candidate. Not voting third party in general.

Third party in general just means that most people are sick of the two candidates in top. This could mean that we are splitting The 60% between five third-party candidates. This means the Democratic and Republican candidates are still on top?

Now if 60% of the people were interested in voting for the green candidate specifically. Then I’m very interested and a big funny is about to happen to the Republican or Democratic candidate.

Whoa, where did I say the poll was meaningless?

How do you do that thing where you put things I never said in my mouth? Hey, let me try.

My name is OBJECTION! and I can’t read.

Wow, that was easier than I thought it was.

Ad-homing is fun!