He / They

  • 8 Posts
  • 831 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 16th, 2023

help-circle



  • Come on. “No u” is all you’ve got?

    It’s not “no u”, it’s “Israel is also committing war crimes and terrorism”. But you’re just an ideologue as well, and see everything in terms of one being right and the other being wrong.

    with the intention of inciting a terrorist offence

    which 100% matches Khan’s actions.

    Bullshit. He did not attempt to actually incite people to commit terrorist actions, from anything I’ve read. You’re trying to play games with words, where “destruction” is (right now, you’ve decided) a direct incitement to violence, but “downfall” is just a vague ideological opposition. The word choice is not what matters, it’s the intent that does, and they did not show any evidence that he’s attempted to incite people to violent acts.

    I don’t have to like the guy to oppose obvious bad-faith claims by the right-wing white supremacists running the Italian government.

    like you are trying to somehow marry some old extreme-left anti-Western ideals with Islamofascim, which is absurd mental gymnastics

    I didn’t do that, you did. I didn’t mention e.g. socialist calls for revolution or the like anywhere. But since you brought it up, it is important to point out that the logic used against him absolutely could be used against the Left in Italy. The whole point of the “First they came for…” poem is about not pushing back on fascism when it isn’t targeting you, or maybe even targeting people you don’t like.

    And in case you want to claim this is fear-mongering, this is actually happening in the UK already, with climate protesters being charged as “terrorists” under a program (“Prevent”) that was originally meant to protect against especially Islamic extremism. [1][2]

    You cannot be an advocate for the Palestinian people and at the same time support a group that oppresses Palestinians and has brought endless suffering over them even before this war that they started.

    Now you’re just falling back on the “Hamas bad so Israel good better for Palestinians” shtick. Hamas is bad, but they’re certainly helping Palestinians more than Israel is. And their leaders being wealthy? You can largely thank Netanyahu for that, because he’s one of the biggest offenders siphoning them money to undermine the PA from making inroads back into Gaza. Also, using wealth disparity as some kind of gotcha against them as leaders is a hell of a line to use if you live in a Western country, since that’s true for their political leaders too.

    Did you know that Israel is granting asylum to LGBTQ+ Palestinians from both the Gaza strip and the West Bank due to how heavily they are being persecuted?

    That’s wonderful. It does not excuse their genocide, though. (See, I can actually hold a nuanced view that goes beyond “x good or x bad”.)

    Hamas’ goals are indistinguishable from the likes of Al Qaeda and the Islamic State.

    Once again, you are clearly incapable of understanding that not supporting Israel (or their right-wing supporters abroad) does not mean someone supports Hamas or their political views. But them being bad, and even the majority of Palestinians having what I believe to be harmful religious views, does not mean I’m okay with mistreating or killing them. Same way I don’t for religious Jews or Christians, who also have harmful views.


  • Here come the usual suspects…

    Encouraging and supporting terrorism is illegal in Europe

    Their support for Israel proves otherwise. It’s just a label they use to favor one side.

    You can’t be living as a guest in a Western country and at the same time demand their destruction

    Yes, you can. That’s what free speech means. Advocating that Westernism is bad and calling for its downfall is not the same as inciting direct violence. There is no requirement to be pro-West, to live here. This, “love it or leave it” Western Chauvinism is not something to be advocating on Beehaw.

    He’s not pro-Palestinian, he’s just your run of the mill Islamist demagogue.

    He is both, but he’s always been a right-wing Islamic demagogue. It’s only because he’s advocating for Palestinians that he’s now being expelled.





  • These groups face a hefty mandate: to use that federal funding to spur $150 billion or more of private-sector investment in climate and clean-energy projects

    I love how our shitty system can only give money out to private companies to build Green infrastructure, instead of just, you know… using the money to build the infrastructure in the underserved markets ourselves.

    Climate United also hopes that this first-of-a-kind financing of the pre-construction expenses of mid-size solar installations — a category of costs that includes permitting and interconnection fees and which developers now pay for themselves — will help other private-sector lenders ​“reduce the delta between actual risk and perceived risk in the market,” she said.

    I understand that this is supposed to spur private entities to invest their own money into these projects, but they don’t actually cite anywhere in the article that this works. It also mandates a US-centric supply chain, which (while good) also means that the actual cost to the government/ public is being hidden by subsidies already being paid to those companies.

    The closest the article gets to saying this works is:

    This kind of climate lending has a track record to build on. Over the past 12 years, green banks — government-backed and nonprofit entities now operating in 17 states, which provided the model for the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund — have enabled nearly $22 billion in public-private investment.

    but that doesn’t specify the breakdown of public vs private. The goal for this fund is $20B public, to spur $150B private, but color me skeptical that will actually happen.





  • One of the worst and most predictable outcomes of Marxist-Leninism is the meshing together of the post-revolution counter-counterrevolutionary force, with the single-party state.

    Marx never intended for there to be a central government wielding authority to combat counter-revolutionary backlash, this was supposed to be a continuation of the proletariat revolutionary movement, that served both to prevent society from sinking back into top-down control during peacetime complacency, and to keep the productive, positive, unifying spirit generated in a freedom-seeking revolutionary movement from dying out once the revolution was complete, and seeing the proletariat become divided.

    When Lenin (and drawing on Lenin, Mao) murdered the whole “stateless” part of Communism, that counter-counterrevolutionary force became a tool for justifying suppression of the proletariat by the State, because the state was (not actually, of course) the revolutionary force. This also insulates the state against ever dissolving into the actualized stateless society that MLs still claim to totally be moving towards, because anyone seeking to dissolve the state to that end is, in the state’s eyes, indistinguishable from other counter-revolutionary forces seeking to dissolve the state to return to Capitalism/ Feudalism/ Monarchy/ etc.

    *After all, how can the single-party State know if the proletariat are actually good Communists, or whether they’re actually counter-revolutionaries? Only by maintaining constant surveillance and vigilance (and continuing the State)!






  • One thing I’d push back on in the article is:

    That cost-per-user doesn’t decrease as you add more customers. You need more servers. More GPUs.

    This is assuming constant use, which is not the case. If I have a server handling LLM prompt requests, and for illustrative purposes each request uses 100% of the single discrete GPU in it, and I only have 1 customer, but that one customer only uses it 5% of the day (which would actually be pretty high in real terms), I can still add additional customers without needing to buy additional servers. The question is whether the given revenue of a single server outweighs its cost to run.

    And when it comes to training, that is an upfront cost, that you could (if you get a model to where you want it) stop having to pay whenever you want. I’m pretty surprised they haven’t been really leaning into training models for medical diagnoses, because once you have a model that can e.g. spot a type of tumor with n% accuracy beyond a human, you don’t really have to refine it further if you don’t want to (after all, it’s not like the humans can choose to do it better themselves at that point, like they can with writing prompts).