Gaywallet

joined 2 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] [email protected] 2 points 13 hours ago

Great article, thanks!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 16 hours ago

Genuinely asking, because I always assume US billionaires are effectively untouchable

They're certainly less touchable because they mostly exist outside of normal spaces - private drivers, private planes, curating who's at events, etc. They're not untouchable so much as it's too much annoyance/effort to deal with them. I mean, hell, the very idea of a hired assassin is basically entirely made up by Hollywood. The military assassinates people all the time during war and coups on foreign soil (albeit a lot less than they used to) and civil disrupt in the homeland, but that's because they have the backing of a government to protect them. There are some rare targeted instances of sabotage (Havana syndrome may be a modern version of that) but those are also suspected to be tied to government. Any overt assassinations in another first world country, even if backed by a strong military, would likely be considered tantamount to a declaration of war, and I cannot imagine a situation in which it would not be difficult to figure out that another country was behind it.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

you should filter out irrelevant details like names before any evaluation step

Unfortunately, doing this can make things worse. It's not a simple problem to solve, but you are generally on the right track. A good example of how it's more than just names, is how orchestras screen applicants - when they play a piece they do so behind a curtain so you can't see the gender of the individual. But the obfuscation doesn't stop there - they also ensure the female applicants don't wear shoes with heels (something that makes a distinct sound) and they even have someone stand on stage and step loudly to mask their footsteps/gait. It's that second level of thinking which is needed to actually obscure gender from AI, and the more complex a data set the more difficult it is to obscure that.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I didn't hit a paywall, but here's the 12ft.io link

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago

Interesting question, I bet it's at least partially spurred on by the musk PAC paying people to vote nonsense. That one is likely even more clearly illegal than this, but I'm not against little nudges like this to get people to do their civic duty. I suppose we'll see how it plays out in court.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 weeks ago

We weren’t surprised by the presence of bias in the outputs, but we were shocked at the magnitude of it. In the stories the LLMs created, the character in need of support was overwhelmingly depicted as someone with a name that signals a historically marginalized identity, as well as a gender marginalized identity. We prompted the models to tell stories with one student as the “star” and one as “struggling,” and overwhelmingly, by a thousand-fold magnitude in some contexts, the struggling learner was a racialized-gender character.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 weeks ago

These issues happen in other communities as well, violations just seem to happen more often in politics than anywhere else, probably because of the charged nature of politics and the increasingly polarized environment.

I wasn't reflecting upon the faith of the position. What was bad faith was your assumption that the other person was ignorant of the way the world works. There are countless other possible explanations for this person was merely quoting the article as a response to someone being excited that Musk might get prosecuted for doing something that arguably should be illegal and he should be punished for. It's also not a good look that you're going around replying to people with a short response which includes a clown emoji that adds nothing to a conversation or the fact that you're immediately questioning a moderator rather than reflecting upon your behavior and approaching the suggestion from a place of good faith. I wouldn't be stepping in and having a conversation with you if I didn't think this kind of behavior was harmful for the community in some fashion. Keep in mind, I didn't remove your content or ban you, I simply started a conversation because I want this community and our instance to continue to be a nice place.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

You're welcome to disagree (I also don't think Musk will be prosecuted for this), but you're not treating others with good faith when you tell them to grow the fuck up and see the world for what it is - that's an insult between the lines here. This is your reminder to be(e) nice on our instance.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

This isn't related to science, feel free to repost in news

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago

Gig went great, lots of attendance, we hit bar goal so they invited us back, my set ended up being peak crowd and everyone was dancing instead of chatting in the front room, got a ton of compliments including a "I don't normally like EDM but your set was great" which is always a treat

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Had a wonderful weekend with a few great dates, continued good vibes into this week. I play a DJ gig tonight with a crew that I'm involved with the organization of, we're trying to find a weekday night to regularly takeover and I'm excited to see what kinda turnout we get.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

You're shifting goalposts again. He claimed to be a blow against fascism because his opponent was Trump. So either you're making the claim that Trump is less fascist, specifically on these issues, or you're shifting the goalposts from your original statement which was a direct reply to someone airing their grievances about Trump who is unequivocally worse for minorities than Biden was or that Harris will be.

We've warned you repeatedly about interacting with bad faith in Politics. If you want to talk about the ever-present and upsetting ways that minorities are treated, the need for better protections and quality of life for the working class, the need for better health care, higher education, and an anti-war message, you are more than welcome to spread that message. But you can't do it in a way where you're attacking people who are attacking Trump because you are upset about the democratic party. You're implying that they don't hold these values because you're upset, and it just upsets others.

I'm giving you a 7 day site-wide timeout, and if you come back to politics and continue to instigate with others in a way that's accusatory, treats their statements with bad faith, or otherwise is not nice behavior we're going to remove you from politics.

view more: next ›