Evidence?
PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S
I mean did you learn anything?
They are saying because Kamala did not want mass ICE deportations that we wouldn't be having mass ICE deportations in LA.
Are they saying that somewhere else? Because I didn't see that anywhere in the text of either of the two comments in the chain.
More accurately though: Kamala does not brashly call for mass ICE deportations like Trump does because she needs to maintain an image of being an opposition. And the point of maintaining this veneer of being an opposition party is to provide a pressure valve. The goal is to manufacture consent, to pacify liberals who might otherwise figure out that the system does nothing for them and become leftists, to put a "woke" face on the evil agenda of capitalism so liberals can smugly claim to be the only people fighting for social justice and simultaneously block out any radical voices.
That doesn't mean she, and the Biden admin that she promised to be an extension of, wouldn't be having mass ICE deportations all over the country. It only means that liberals would be cool with it like they were with ICE deportations under the Biden and Obama administrations. Because liberals, by and large, like the violence. The ones who figure out that they don't become leftists.
Even if you believe Kamala and Trump share the beliefs/end goals/policies whatever, there is at least one distinction and that is she did not want mass ICE immigration. Therefore, she is LESS harmful.
Honestly, the only material difference between the two is what they say in public. It's only an indicator at best of the trajectory of the system.
Like imagine if your car is smoking in the front, and the mechanic is like "The transmission is fucked, the engine is on fire, the battery also exploded, and I'm not going to do anything about it", but then you take the car to another mechanic and they're like "The transmission is fucked, the engine is on fire, the battery also exploded, and I'm not going to do anything about it, but I'm willing to charge you $69 to turn off the Check Engine light." And hundreds of people in the internet are like "Bro you gotta fix the check engine light or your car will never work ever again bro please just go to the other mechanic and pay $69 and if you want to get a bike instead you secretly want your car to be on fire bro".
In a car, the Check Engine light is an indicator that something is wrong, just like in the US, the public rhetoric of the current administration is an indicator of the trajectory the system is on.
I'm not wasting my time to prop up liberal Democrat politicians who won't even pretend to attempt to change a goddamn thing. We know the system is working exactly as intended. It's oppressing the exact people it's supposed to oppress. And the Democrats aren't even pretending to care about the things they campaigned on stopping in the last election cycle. They're the baddies too, and I'm tired of pretending they're not.
if she was prez I don't think we'd have the national guard tear gassing protesters in LA right now
What are you smoking and can I get some?
That sucks. Thank you for your time and running the instance. Gonna miss you all like hell while you're gone. π
Me not doing the midterm exam due on Sunday π
I think we're good now lol.
USA sux
"Gradient descent" β on a "hilly" (mathematical) surface, try to find the lowest point by finding the lowest point near an initial guess. "Gradient" is basically the steepness, or rate that the thing you're trying to optimize changes as you move through "space". The gradient tells you mathematically which direction you need to go to reach the bottom. "Descent" means "try to find the minimum".
I'm glossing over a lot of details, particularly what a "surface" actually means in the high dimensional spaces that AI uses, but a lot of problems in mathematical optimization are solved like this. And one of the steps in training an AI agent is to do an optimization, which often does use a gradient descent algorithm. That being said, not every process that uses gradient descent is necessarily AI or even machine learning. I'm actually taking a course this semester where a bunch of my professor's research is in optimization algorithms that don't use a gradient descent!
They created a good product so people used it and there were no alternatives when it got shit.
They created an inherently centralizing implementation of a video sharing platform. Even if it was done with good intentions (which it wasn't, it was some capitalist's hustle, and its social importance is a side effect), we should basically always condemn centralizing implementations of a given technology because they reinforce existing power structures regardless of the intentions of their creators.
It's their fault because they're a corporation that does what corporations do. Even when corporations try to do right by the world (which is an extremely generous appraisal of YouTube's existence), they still manage to create centralizing technologies that ultimately serve to reinforce their existing power, because that's all they can do. Otherwise, they would have set themselves up as a non-profit or some other type of organization. I refuse to accept the notion of a good corporation.
Thereβs no lock in. They donβt force you off the platform if you post elsewhere (like twitch did).
That's a good point, but while there isn't a de jure lock-in for creators, there is a de facto lock-in that prevents them from migrating elsewhere. Namely, that YouTube is a centralized, proprietary service, which can't be accessed from other services.
Literally every corporation does or attempts to do the same thing.
Exactly. Every single corporation is evil and should be dismantled π₯π₯π₯. This is just one of a thousand reasons to do so.
I want to believe