Kinperor

joined 9 months ago
[–] Kinperor@lemmy.ca 14 points 2 months ago

"I'm very concerned about my surgery, is the surgeon very talented?"

"Oh, he fucks"

"You mean that figuratively? As in, he's very good at what he does?"

"..."

[–] Kinperor@lemmy.ca 31 points 3 months ago

I skimmed the article, I might have missed it but here's another strike against AI, that is tremendously important: It's the ultimate accountability killer.

Did your insurance company make an obvious mistake? Oops teeehee, silly them, the AI was a bit off

Is everything going mildly OK? Of course! The AI is deciding who gets insurance and who doesn't, it knows better, so why are you questioning it?

Expect (and rage against) a lot of pernicious usage of AI for decision making, especially in areas where they shouldn't be making decisions (take Israel for instance, that uses an AI to select ""military"" targets in Gaza).

[–] Kinperor@lemmy.ca 87 points 4 months ago (5 children)

I'm going to start pointing to this when I explain to people why I want "dumb" machines.

I don't want AI to "summarize" my google search, I don't want ads distracting drivers, I don't want a washing machine that needs updates, I don't want my TV to look at me, I want a submissive little machine that does task X.

[–] Kinperor@lemmy.ca 5 points 4 months ago

Having us as one state - jamming Quebec, BC, Ontario, etc all together would be a recipe for disaster above and beyond all the other disasters involved. It would be like, I don’t know, merging New York and Georgia into one state. The FLQ alone would instantly revive and start up their bombing campaigns again.

The American elites are not above fostering a state of crisis and chaos. The BLM riots happened under Biden's administration. Biden had deportation camps. Look at current day USA.

These "disasters" are not the deterrent you think it is.

And be real, they would never give us status as states. We’d be Puerto Rico North at best until the violence died down in a century of terrorism and genocide.

Being "real" would be admitting that the US empire is on the verge of collapses. I think decades of continuation is possible, but unlikely. Century? Impossible (at least, for the current statu quo).

[–] Kinperor@lemmy.ca -1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

The US plans some of their invasion/regime change over the course of years if not decades.

I honestly believe that Trump was briefed on some plans to annex Greenland, Canada and Panama, and the fucking buffoon let the cat out of the bag.

I have something like 57% certainty that democrats would eventually start denouncing "fentanyl labs" in Canada and create excuses for invasion.

edit: Worth noting, by the way, that's it's a consensus that Canada is more liberal than the US. Having Canada as a 51st state would essentially be handling the Dems a huge advantage for all elections going forward... Gee golly, I wonder whether they might actually root for Don a little bit, there.

[–] Kinperor@lemmy.ca 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Then it's fine to fasten a noose around the natives' neck and very gradually tighten it?

What else could you be indicating by posting about this in this context? It's true that natives were nomadic people moving through the land, but how does that make it right for europeans to come in and claim land in a permanent fashion from across the globe?

[–] Kinperor@lemmy.ca 9 points 5 months ago (3 children)

ah yes, that time when america was a land without people, and americans were a people without land

[–] Kinperor@lemmy.ca 15 points 5 months ago

This is not a time to get hung up about identity politics, who's red, who's blue. Everyone should scream at the Trump regime that war with Iran is unacceptable and to never bring it up again.

There will be time for bickering afterwards about details, but right now, everyone against this war should circle the wagons.

And everyone not against this war needs to first say no to that war, second pick up an history book about Iraq and Afghanistan.

[–] Kinperor@lemmy.ca 2 points 8 months ago

"Mostly stable". I've had my fair share of issues with Windows.

But one of the big benefit is that it is much easier to diagnose an issue on Windows, just by sheer volume of mainstream usage (IE users complaining about issues and seeking help online). Also, tech support won't turn you around because you are on Linux, an OS they straight up refuse to support.

[–] Kinperor@lemmy.ca 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I had the same outlook before switching to Arch Linux, but honestly gaming on Linux is actually the lesser of my hassle. I can genuinely just grab msi files or exe files for games and feed them to Steam to get them playing via Proton. There's only one (1!) game that I can't play, and I'm 99% certain it's a problem with my hardware, not my OS (Monster Hunter Wilds seems to hate my GPU and crash all the time). But even that was fixed with a mod (up until the latest update).

With that said, I've had a lot of hassle handling other things that are upstream of gaming so it's not like you're unreasonable in wanting an OS that is mostly stable. Then again, I made the decision to use Arch Linux, there's distros that are simpler afaik.