• 1 Post
  • 28 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: August 2nd, 2023

help-circle


  • I get the feeling of discomfort but it’s basically the same feeling we get when someone breaks a pencil

    There is no evidence that a mosquito is capable of feeling the kind of despair or horror that a human would feel in a similar situation. It’s unlikely that mosquitos can form emotions at all.

    At the same time, a huge portion of human-animal interactions involve the human controlling the animal in ways that they animal can’t even comprehend. A dog has no idea you’re doing operant conditioning to change their behavior. Pigs have no idea they’re being fed just so they and their children can be eaten.

    The only way to avoid this kind of thing is to turn off your big human brain and go back to ape tier. We might need to go farther down the tier list than that though https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War



  • nednobbins@lemm.eetohmmm@lemmy.worldhmmm
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 month ago

    I’d really like to know more about this. Google shows that there are a bunch of people selling this, or similar things like a rainbow Gadsden flag but it’s not clear to me who is actually buying them or what their intended message is.

    Is it a joke? Maybe they’re just trolling everyone?
    Do they not know what one or both symbols mean?
    Do they actually support the causes behind both symbols? (I saw one post that suggested it might be a different kind of “Southern Pride”)




  • A lot of people have come to realize that LLMs and generative AI aren’t what they thought it was. They’re not electric brains that are reasonable replacements for humans. They get really annoyed at the idea of a company trying to do that.

    Some companies are just dumb and want to do it anyway because they misread their customers.

    Some companies know their customer hate it but their research shows that they’ll still make more money doing it.

    Many people that are actually working with AI realize that AI is great for a much larger set of problems. Many of those problems are worth a ton of money; (eg. monitoring biometric data to predict health risks earlier, natural disaster prediction and fraud detection).








  • Only a little.

    Every language has some set of rules to how your supposed to construct sentences. Every language has a ton of exceptions to those rules.

    The main thing that makes English difficult is that it’s a kind of hybrid language. It’s in the Germanic branch of the Indo-European languages but it borrows a ton of words from the Romance branch. The grammar is also a weird hybrid (for example we preserve grammatical gender in pronouns, like in German, but we’ve mostly dropped grammatical gender in nouns and articles, like in Chinese.

    This is one of the simpler types of exceptions.

    Consider the Chinese phrase: 好久不见 Litterally: “good time not see” But then someone explains that while 好 normally means “good” it can also mean “quite” or “alot”.
    So it’s fairly easy to remember that it’s generally translated as, “long time no see”.

    Those steps are pretty simple for a Chinese learner to understand. It’s also not the hard part of learning a language.



  • I can certainly agree that there is no evidence to suggest that China is “one of the most polluting countries in the world”. I haven’t seen a shred of evidence to support that claim. It is entirely baseless.

    On the other hand, the claim that China’s per capita pollution is lower than that of most industrialized nations is supported by evidence. It is the best evidence we have too, unless you’ve discovered a better metric in the last few days.

    A claim that imperfect evidence is equivalent to no evidence is baseless and will lead to erroneous conclusions.


  • I agree that CO2 is an imperfect measure and you don’t seem to be making the claim that CO2 has an SNR of 0 (ie it carries no information at all). We seem to agree on the core of your central three paragraphs so I won’t comment on them.

    You’ve stated multiple times now that you don’t know any better measures than CO2. So even if there are other measures they’re just as bad or worse. Given this lack of any better metric, on what verifiable evidence are you basing any of your conclusions?

    I’m assuming based on the time you responded to me that you are in China so maybe you can elucidate me on how I get this wrong.

    The same way you got your conclusions about China’s pollution wrong, by misapplying evidence and jumping to conclusions.

    It’s interesting that you should phrase your question that way. The cheap answer would be to point out that you’re not using “elucidate” correctly. You’re missing a preposition. It’s also odd to use “get” instead of “got” here. A corrected version of your sentence might be, “…maybe you can elucidate to me how I got this wrong.” It’s cheap in the sense that personal attacks are easy and do little to advance a conversation. It would be just as silly of me to use your grammar error as evidence that you’re a foreign national as it is for you to use the timing of my posts as evidence of my location.

    You might then suspect that I might still be a foreigner who’s studied too much English grammar. That would be correct. It turns out that when I speak my native language, other native speakers can sometimes pinpoint the exact district in Vienna where I was born. These days, none of my neighbors speak German. They love the Sox and rock their “Dunkies”.

    Just as in the case of estimating China’s pollution levels, cavalier use of evidence leads to erroneous conclusions.


  • OK It sounds like there’s only one metric we can use to evaluate how much China pollutes.

    The metric is widely used by various academics, government agencies and independent organizations. We have no better metric and that metric says that China doesn’t pollute that much.

    That leaves 2 possibilities; the metric actually provides no information at all or it still provides some information.

    If it provides no information AND we don’t have anything that does (ie a better metric) that means we literally have absolutely no information at all about how much China pollutes at all. That means we can’t make any intelligent claims about how much China pollutes or how much they’re fudging the number because there’s no comparison to make.

    If it does provide some information we’re left with a situation where all of the imperfect information supports the claim that China doesn’t pollute much.

    Either way, the evidence as you’ve classified it, doesn’t support the claim that China is, “one of the planet’s most polluting countries,” which was the original claim of this thread. It is, by definition, a baseless conjecture.