What once protected the child becomes exhaustion in the adult. Anxiety is not a brokenness. It is adaptation. It is the nervous system saying, I learned this to keep you safe. Healing does not come from fighting the system, but from slowly teaching it that survival is no longer required. This is why the 30-day healing journey exists, not to fix you, but to gently guide the body out of constant alertness, one day at a time.

I mean, aside from the “30-day healing journey” this sounds pretty genuine. Although, I think it is probably slop-ified from Thich Nhat Hanh.

Generally true, but also, this was testimony from 7 years ago.

It seems a little bit unlikely that Russia would be in favor of this Venezuela thing (simply because they like Maduro), and also, Putin was making performative gestures of support for Maduro up until the invasion (not that it did either of them any good).

Also:

Trump’s actions in Venezuela make it harder for Kyiv’s allies to condemn Russia’s designs on Ukraine as “illegitimate” because “we’ve just had a situation where the U.S. has taken over — or at least decapitated the government of another country — using fiction,” Hill told AP.

I honestly don’t think there is any danger that this will set a precedent of any kind of legitimacy. I think it’s more likely to galvanize opposition to this kind of land-grab than it is to get people to regard it as normal.

I am curious who are the people upvoting this

I suspect that this is such a cavalcade of bullshit of different types that he’s deliberately baiting people to become unable to even begin to come to grips with everything that is wrong with it. And thus, in internet-troll-logic, it means he wins.

Yeah, true that.

On the other hand, the AI tool is presumably pulling from the exact same primary sources which may or may not show a full picture of what happened…

Honestly, the right answer at this point in technology is just to let the bodycam be the police report.

We used to need police reports so there was a solid written record of what (supposedly) happened. It was a pain in the ass writing them, but it had to happen. But now, what’s the point? Surely, the answer is to let cops write a three-sentence report about the broadest possible strokes of who was involved and what was the final outcome, and then “* see bodycam” for the details. Then, if it comes to some sort of proceeding where people have to dig into the nitty gritty details of what happened, they just pull the video, and see for themselves.

Everyone wins. Right?

EDIT: I’ll add that, IMO, hooks should never modify files. They should simply check that your code meets whatever requirements you want your code-base to meet

This, I think, is the way. This is also how I’ve seen it in every actual real project I’ve encountered, and I sort of wish they would make it a little more clear what is the command I can run to make the checks pass by doing an auto-format or whatever, but yes I agree that the author should have spent a little more time on explaining what the actual solution is.

It’s a trend that poses a threat to Amazon’s margins and relationships with customers. When a consumer uses ChatGPT to initiate a purchase, for example, OpenAI collects “a small fee” from each transaction.

“With an agent on ChatGPT, retailers risk relinquishing transactions on their site to pay a toll on someone else’s highway for the same transaction,” Sucharita Kodali, a retail analyst at Forrester, said in an interview.

Gee, Mr. Amazon, that sounds terrible. Only some kind of monster would make you pay a “small” fee for every single transaction between two third parties, just because they set up a server to have it take place on. I’m so sorry that that happened to you.

It’s always the same with these guys:

When they’re winning, it’s ruthless and relentless, everything you get is your fault, and you’re a fool and a dipshit if you don’t get on board.

As soon as things start not going their way, they start the waterworks. It’s all unfair, it’s horrible, how could people be so mean to us. Don’t they believe in all of our common humanity? How could they?

This is literally 100% the reason why a jury of your peers exists.

The founding fathers went through a system where dipshits like Stephen Miller could just make up whatever they wanted, and the people had no role, and they fought a whole war to cancel that system. They knew exactly what was up with it.

Edit: If, by some chance, you wind up on a jury where this comes up, just pretend you’ve never heard of it. Even having heard the term, or understanding the concept, will almost certainly get you disqualified from the jury. You can do the exact same process of deciding that it’s a bunch of bullshit that whatever person is being accused of whatever when it’s pretty obvious that they were not the one in the wrong, without it being called “jury nullification.” It’s just justice, it’s just common sense, like I said it is the whole intent of having a jury.

I am opposed to systems that create oppression and injustice. Taylor Swift had fuck-all to do with creating any of that.

She benefits from it, sure, and she shouldn’t. But targeting her as the problem just feels like the vicious habit of just targeting the weakest example you can think of and pretending that if we keep shitting on that target, it’ll make everything better.

Also, it’s always Taylor Swift.

I feel like this is seeing in action the thinking that led to the cultural revolution. “Sure, he’s just a chemistry teacher. But he’s one of the evil ones. He’s in the bad group. Into the labor camp!”

Fixing the awful problems with our society requires changing a lot of things, among them taxes and the power of the wealthy to distort government and public opinion. Demonizing Taylor Swift relentlessly will do fuck all.

Yeah. I have actually set up machine learning systems incorporating LLMs to do things sort of vaguely similar to this. That little statement about how the context window may have gotten to where the old stuff aged out of it, so that all the context it could see was conversations with the staffers about the glorious communist revolution, indicates to me that they don’t know the first thing about what the fuck they are doing. That’s just not how you do it, even if an LLM is one component of how you want to do it.

People thought the same thing about the Nazis. “These clowns are so ridiculous and they’re clearly incompetent, so at least the damage they’ll do will be limited by that.”

I mean, it was. Someone competent in Hitler’s place would probably have been able to win the war. But the point remains…

I think it was definitely meant to be. They probably intended for a certain amount of good-natured ribbing to take place about it when it did weird stuff sometimes. But I do think that the Wall Street Journal getting it through to their readers that AI is a bunch of malfunctioning shit that will definitely lose you money wasn’t the goal.

Claude claimed it was a test of how the technology would fare in the real world. Then when it fucked up completely, they retconned it into being a “red team” test where people were supposed to break it. They also really emphasized that (apparently unlike the people at Anthropic), the people at the Wall Street Journal are super experts at AI and could break it in ways that no average person or committed cyber criminal or whatever would ever dream of.

The interview at the end is really the cherry on top, where the Anthropic person tries to tell the journalist that she needs to prepare for this kind of thing to happen more and more to people’s businesses, and she deadpans that she doesn’t feel like she needs to prepare right now for too many people to be handing over their businesses to this thing and he misses it completely and just tells her that they definitely will.

I’m actively frustrated by the lack of coverage other genocides are getting.

So you saw a story about atrocities in Myanmar, and your reaction was to get very upset because there’s a lack of coverage of atrocities in Myanmar. Got it. And then you said “no one will do a thing.” Hey, what has the West been “doing” about Gaza? I feel like that’s an important question. If they haven’t been doing anything (aside from deporting Palestine supporters and giving weapons by the planeload), it’s okay to say.

How many hundreds of Isreal/Palistine protests have happend? How many thousands of people have made an official statement. How many people have lost VISAs and been deported for talking about it?

One of these things is not like the others.

This sort of gets to my point: I actually somewhat agree with you about Palestine consuming an outsized reaction compared to other horrible things going on elsewhere in the world and other urgent issues. But there are reasons for that. A lot of those other things, “we” aren’t causing and supporting the whole time it is happening. And, that’s only, as you said, from the population. In terms of what “the West” is doing geopolitically, they’re arming Israel, deporting or denying visas to Palestinian activists, and sometimes giving them prison sentences for speaking up about it. Nobody in “the West” if you mean government is doing shit about it. It’s still happening, just like Darfur, and instead of Anthony Blinken condemning it and putting sanctions on the perpatrators, he’s giving arms to the RSF to the tune of billions and billions of dollars. So to speak.

You basically can’t say it’s a genocide within mainstream media (New York Times, TV, State Department brief). They’re planning on continuing to stall and help it happen until everyone’s dead. I think that’s why people are upset about it.

I’m saying its one of several and the only reason anyone talks about it is because jews are on one side.

Maybe that is a tiny percentage, but most people who hate Jews don’t mind Arabs dying either, and most people at these hundreds of protests you are talking about also have no problem with Jews. A lot of them are Jews. That’s sort of the core of my point: I don’t get how you think that caring about Gaza correlates with not caring about Myanmar. Surely people would mostly either care about both or neither (if we’re talking about the population), right? And the fact that they care and it’s being reported is why we’re talking under a story about Myanmar?

Anyway, what has the West actually been “doing” about the genocide in Gaza? If they haven’t been doing anything, it’s okay to say. I feel like you keep not really addressing that question.

Yes. I read the Lancet’s study estimating the total deaths (and then some more recent follow-up ones which come to a variety of conclusions), I read a handful of UN reports past and present in a good bit of detail, I watched some video of what’s actually happening, I read a huge variety of sources including Israel’s and the Arab world’s and US and non-US news sources a lot of which include criticism of the others so you can get a solidly well-rounded idea of what is happening. I’ve had some conversations on Lemmy where someone was swearing that something would happen in the future in some particular way, and I predicted something else, and my prediction was the one that came true because I’m generally on top of what is happening.

Anyway, what has the West been “doing” about Israel / Palestine? That wasn’t just rhetorical, I’m genuinely asking you what you’re talking about.

Also what do you mean bringing Palestine into it in the first place (my last question)? Are you implying that someone who does care about Palestine would therefore not care about Myanmar? If that’s what you’re saying that doesn’t make sense to me. Or am I misunderstanding that part, what are you saying?

One of the best approaches I saw was a teacher who assigned students to have ChatGPT generate a paper on a topic, and then write their own paper critiquing ChatGPT’s paper and identifying the errors that it made.

What have they been doing about Israel / Palestine? Outside of a bunch of protests the West hasn’t been “doing” anything about either one (well, aside from arming the Israelis the whole time).

Also, it’s not really an either/or if that’s what you are implying. What’s happening in Gaza is so much worse than Myanmar that it kind of makes sense that they would be more vocal about it… but I suspect that outside a handful of openly partisan actors, most people either care about both (because they care about human rights) or neither (because they don’t). Right? Or no? I’m just a little confused about what viewpoint you’re taking here.