You're assuming the DNC even wants to win.

They are a corporate machine with a lot of the same donors as Republicans. Their job is to provide a nominal resistance to the oligarchy, not actually win, govern, or fix things. That's why they don't want Bernie who is not on board with their mission. He was so popular his ideas dominated the primaries, so the DNC pulled out all the stops to keep him from winning, because it would've been very hard to maintain their soft obstructionism with him pushing on so many issues from the bully pulpit.

This is part of why I think you actually should vote for the Dem candidate as long as they're not the raging fascist that Trump is - they don't care about your protest vote or whatever. They will just lose, shrug their shoulders and start fund-raising for the next season where they will continue to be the only viable option because of deeply entrenched structural obstacles to any alternative.

They're the Mozilla CEO, I image they'd fall off a linux.

She'd be a very successful candidate no doubt, if the DNC allowed it. You've seen how they did Bernie and he's an old white guy. I can't imagine them going for AOC. They're a fundamentally conservative organisation that exists to vet candidates and prevent anyone with the will to make "actual change" from being in a position to.

Also, they've argued in court that they are not a democratic organisation. They can block nominations entirely unilaterally, to one of the only two parties that can realistically field a presidential candidate. The other party is much more openly corrupt, which is a genuine achievement.

The US electoral system is entirely captured by corporate interests.

Proof of stake is what it's called, but then it's even more of a ponzi scheme because you have to buy in. Like they're literally recreating coconut island.

Also nobody seems to actually be doing it, possibly for exactly that reason. It's just a green-washing promise of an idea.

Federation and crypto are two completely opposite philosophies of decentralisation.

Crypto is based on zero-trust, which sounds cool and edgy if you're 15, but in practice it turns out that the people drawn to a zero trust system are untrustworthy. It's not surprising that it's full of Nazis.

Federation is designed around trust, which is the way our meatspace social networks actually work, and I think it's the only reasonable way forward.

I can imagine a plugin system that gets submissions of hashes of specific frames - or just entire frames - when users play them, then checks those frames to detect which parts of the video are unique vs common, then automatically requests new frames to narrow down the timestamps and carve out the additions.

Probably wouldn't take more than a handful of views across the entire network to get a pretty solid ad removal system. Even better it wouldn't even rely on user input, which itself is already pretty fast. I have never encountered even the newest video that wasn't already in the sponsorblock system.

Honestly this sounds like a fun project, I imagine it wouldn't take the heroes that develop things like sponsorblock very long to figure it out. Plus they have spite on their side.

Edit: actually, rather than rely on randomised frame checks to find the collisions, have the clients submit frames then send frames out and ask clients to see if those frames appear in their videos. Then you very quickly determine which frames are unique.

I don't know why you'd go with a crypto scheme if what you actually need is video.

Peertube is federated just like lemmy, so it doesn't have to cook the planet to achieve decentralisation.

So much effort, dev time and resources just to fight users to make the experience worse and push them to alternatives to squeeze out the tiniest margin of extra ad money. Plus I'm sure this'll be countered almost immediately. I'd be shocked if ad blockers took more than a few days to find a way to detect and neuter these ads.

This is some accelerated enshittification.

It just occurred to me how absolutely accurate it is that the cops are holding the line defending the small number of Nazis from the counter-protestors. They also have that cop who hates the Nazis just like everyone else, but he's still doing his job keeping everyone back, which is also pretty accurate.

They're wrong that brains are the same as LLMs, but neural networks are just mimicking our brains. That's how they work. The difference between an LLM and a thinking mind is in structure and complexity, and in computational power. We don't yet have the knowledge of how to structure a mind out of the pieces of neural nets we've built so far.

Okay, I disagree that our brains "suffer similarly when outside of training data". The capacity of a mind to infer meaning and dynamically problem solve is qualitatively different from an LLM. We can see something completely new to us and immediately start making connections and inferences. LLMs don't make inferences because they don't understand meaning.

However, I agree that our brains are effectively just organic neural networks. That's just definitionally true, because neural networks are biomimicry, and we can tell we've got it right because they successfully mimic pieces of our brain. An LLM is effectively like the language planning centre of our brain, but that planning centre just gives us phrases. We have to pass those phrases through our consciousness, our context engine, to determine if they really mean what we want. When someone is choosing their words carefully, they are doing this. If we aren't careful sometimes we shit out some words without really thinking and we sound dumb, just like an LLM.

All properties are transient.

Huh, I never made the connection with Eva, but I watched that as a kid so the influence would've been there.

And yeah, MW4's feet blew me away when I first saw them. The way they tilted to match the ground and rotated to turn the mech.

Spider tank game does sound cool. I actually have a scifi concept about cyborg-vehicles that people ride inside of. They're genetically-engineered living tissue with cybernetic components, a cockpit and possibly a neural interface, and they would be walkers.

The walking controller is generic, so it really should accommodate any number of limbs. And you could quite easily make it lumber more slowly like a mech.

First of all I agree with your point that it is all hallucination.

However I think a brain in a vat could confirm information about the world with direct sensors like cameras and access to real-time data, as well as the ability to talk to people and determine things like who was trustworthy. In reality we are brains in vats, we just have a fairly common interface that makes consensus reality possible.

The thing that really stops LLMs from being able to make judgements about what is true and what is not is that they cannot make any judgements whatsoever. Judging what is true is a deeply contextual and meaning-rich question. LLMs cannot understand context.

I think the moment an AI can understand context is the moment it begins to gain true sentience, because a capacity for understanding context is definitionally unbounded. Context means searching beyond the current information for further information. I think this context barrier is fundamental, and we won't get truth-judging machines until we get actually-thinking machines.

The theory I've seen accepted here is that A was closer to the thumb: https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/34650/what-reason-could-nintendo-have-had-for-putting-the-a-and-b-buttons-in-a-non-alp#34652

And perhaps on the XBox/PS controllers with 4 buttons, the bottom button is the natural rest position.

I would love to see someone do a study on if there's an intuitive layout or if it's all just learned.

Thanks! I think that's a good sign :)

I'm not going to tell you you're wrong about me being a weirdo with questionable taste.

Huh, well I was just guessing about the XBox thing to be honest, sounds like you know more about it.

Also the difference between the layouts wouldn't be so infuriating if XBox and Switch didn't have literally the exact opposite in both naming and functionality across both of the X/Y and A/B pairs.

I don't know why though, but I adopt the Switch style much more easily than I flip back. It's weird because the bottom button is always the easiest to press and you'd expect that to be the obvious ergonomic answer, but my brain has some weird preference for the other way.

This has got to settle into a convention sometime. I'd be interested to see if there's any research into it.

Actually, I found this informal poll (in English which would skew the results). In playstation the western style is overwhelmingly favoured but Nintendo and XBox styles are about an even split:

https://www.resetera.com/threads/what-confirm-button-feels-the-most-natural-to-you-on-a-controller.149603/

Motherfucker you came at me with a challenge to a position that I clearly didn't have, and your "apology" was obviously a snide attempt to make a second equally ridiculous accusation.

You also said I "voiced prejudice". (EDIT: In fact, you called it an "accusation", your words, so it wasn't some academic detached notion that you were attacking, it was my conduct directly) Now, if that's meant to mean something other than you accusing me of racism or whatever "geographical" prejudice is, go for it. Explain yourself.

I never said anything prejudicial towards any group. Once again, if I did, fucking show it. Explain your working.

So far I am working off of vague insinuations and technical "well ackshually"s from you. If you have something to say, fucking say it.

The opposite of Racist is not a Racist with an opposite list of “good” and bad “races”, it’s somebody who thinks it’s not race that makes people be “good” or “bad”.

It was indeed incorrect and unfair of my part to accuse you of voicing prejudice by race when the prejudice you voiced was by “geographical area of birth”.

Put those two together, in context, like you might do if you could read things, understand them and infer basic meaning, and that's actually very clearly what you were saying.

In case you can't follow it because for example you are trying to avoid taking responsibility for what you said: you said I divided people into good and bad by race, then you corrected yourself and said my prejudice was based on geography. That prejudice was clearly established as believing in good and bad people.

You're right, that really wasn't hard, because you absolutely did say that.

You clearly don't have anything honest to say or you'd have said it. You're 0 for 3 on actually saying something that makes sense yet. I don't hold out hope for future comments.

Please tell me where in my comment I said anyone were bad people because of their "geographical area of birth".

It wasn't a very long comment I made so it shouldn't be hard to find it, unless I said no such thing.