Yes, they wouldn’t use an incorrect word. But look at NBC coverage of the tea party pushing the GOP rightward.

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna43060886

Not a single use of the word insurgent, even though it also makes sense to do so here.

I was born in the 90s and I recognize this image. Though it was the lady who had the daycare doing it, but still

Parent companies shouldn’t be a thing

I think stopping there is best. We don’t need companies buying other companies, full stop.

Nah, that would make it hella dangerous to just be a person existing in that space. Much safer to use trains to get to a city and then travel in the city by personal conveyance, like a bike or something. Imagine how awful life would be if we gave all that space to train tracks just for individual use. It would be an isolated, lonely nightmare. Not to mention super expensive too. Train engines, no matter how small, are not cheap to own or operate.

Include SUVs in your computation and rerun the numbers. Yes, the big fuck off trucks are still a minority, but they push everything bigger the bigger they get. And bigger is the only thing they’re getting.

I drive a MINI, bought it in 2018. Then, I was comfortably in the majority of car sizes (new minis are comfortable hatchbacks). Now, there’s maybe 10% of cars that I’m comparable to, everything else has windows with bottoms that are at or above my roofline.

Frontovers is the highest growing category of accident. They’re happening because people can’t see small children over the hood of their emotional support freedom truck, orphan crushing model.

Yes, cell phones but mostly lack of visibility.

Some error with crossposting comment logic, looks like

If, for whatever reason, you could only choose to do one, then yes public transit infrastructure should be the priority. This might be surprising, but I’m not involved in Mexican politics, so I can’t comment on why those efforts aren’t occurring. My guess would be car-centric propaganda is wide-spread there just like it is in the states.

My 30 years comment isn’t how long it takes to get a town, community, or even a city to embrace car-antagonistic infrastructure. That’s more like 5-10 years for a majorityof transport use to change. I meant how long it takes to turn a nation to majority non-car transit.

No, I don’t think EVs are being deployed as a stop-gap here. It’s definitely an attempt to capitalize on the EV market gap that American automakers are leaving wide-open. That doesn’t mean it isn’t still good, just not the better solution.

Yes, but also they already have a fuck ton of road infrastructure, so this is also good. The transition takes time and this will lower co2 faster than waiting the 30 years it would take to get the infrastructure in place to reduce car usage enough to impact co2 emissions.

Nah, they’re addicted to being first and everyone’s running this race so you gotta race faster than them. They know a collapse is coming, but those only affect poors and the collapse will make subsequent investing much cheaper.

If you’re thinking about consequences, you’re not doing capitalism well enough to be on top anyways.

Yes, I do. I’m living it, man

Yeah, man. Jobs now require you to use them and health insurance is predicated on you having a job. Yet again, the American oligarchs can force their way, regardless of what we want.

“I ate a bad version of a dish, so I know I don’t like that dish” is how that sounds

This is a complete misread of what this means. Drones are used to kill people, not other drones. Drones are last priority targets in basically all cases except for strategic defensive positions. This switch means more death at the hands of less (or no) people. It’s like arguing that nukes are good because they’re so destructive that they’ll end war. Which is the opposite of what they did, wars just became proxy wars in an attempt to drain your adversary of resources, instead of direct conflict to stop them. We have more international conflict now than at any point in human history. This will make that even worse.

is a bug, not a feature

Umm, excuse me. We’re delivering 400 points worth of story work with 40 points worth of dev time. Do you think that that’s somehow a bad thing? Our budget is stretching further than ever! (Once we figure out how to reduce token costs) /s

The issue is more that the triangle of code that works, code that scales well, and code that’s cheap will always, ALWAYS, prioritize works and is cheap, even if every action taken from then on costs more to make. I’ve been on a team that focused effort on keeping scalability a priority and every single thing we tried got kneecapped to “keep to the budget”.

Oh! You think they plan things. Think tanks definitely have wish lists, but the admin just does whatever, switching as fast as possible between them so that news of one rides over the news of others.

The issue with framing it as just distraction is that that language feeds into the idea that this is a smokescreen for something else that’s actually important. They’re both important, just timed to take air from each other in the media space. It’s like a magician robbing a guy and using the illegal demolition of a building he wanted destroyed as the distraction. Both acts are things that are important to the person making the decisions, but one is definitely going to be the bigger attention grabber.

I don’t disagree. Most generative AI models are some variant on “plagiarism machine”, but categorizing and identifying data are extremely useful things that AI does.

LLMs are good at quickly generating code, but the issue in software is rarely how fast humans can write code. In fact, more speed with less understanding is a really bad combination (I am a developer working DevOps and anecdotally I see way more large scale bugs now than I did 5 years ago).

Agentic AI is, unfortunately, just an LLM pretending to be a person, and that’s a really bad thing. Like so incredibly bad. Did you know that humans are statistically more likely to make mistakes when under pressure? Cause the LLMs sure do. Create a narrative of pressure and the LLM cracks like a rotten egg. Cause that’s more statistically likely!

Not a paradox. It plagiarizes because it isn’t capable of creating thoughts. It creates statistically likely combinations of tokens. Those “statistically likely” models were made by stealing a whole bunch of information.

The model hallucinates because it doesn’t actually know what any of the tokens mean, just that they exist in a likely probability space.

If you took two papers about a very similar subject, copied them both out in their entirety, then replaced similar phrases from one copy into the other, the resultant paper would both contain inaccuracies and would be plagiarism. That’s the same thing ai does, except the copies are the sum total of the digitized human written work. Increasing the number of sources you’re plagiarizing from doesn’t magically make it not plagiarism!

Hmmmm, not much actual use for the hallucinating plagiarism machine, but I do see your point.

What better way to venerate glorious leader than to emulate his speech?