You remind me of Joey from friends when he gets a female roomate.

We could also force all people to wear ankle bracelets and be monitored by the government, AI could predict any ongoing or potential future crimes and we will have a crime free society where everyone is safe.

Dropbox were really smart and went for it early, they closed offices completely and sent plenty of workers to full remote. Savong money for the company on office rent, and money and time for the workers.

Can we all abuse the word woke until it’s like a common replacement for shit?

Like;

• This coffee is fucking woke
• I dumped a massive woke today
• This president is a fucking woke hitler
• Elon is as woke as it gets

Makes sense if you look at abliterated models. Once abliterated and retrained they seem to improve. Imo we are adding too much human bias by trying to guide the LLM. Censored models are good and need to be used in some situations, but shouldn’t the base be just data and only then finetune to desired output?

I wonder if this is because it’s porn or because it’s french people who like to stick it to the government

So now we know, 9/11 and property damage are roughly equivalent in the eyes of the FBI. Makes a weird incentive to be more extreme in protests right? Like, if throwing rocks at a cop car and killing 3000 people plus demolishing the 2 largest buildings in the US and also a bunch of infrastructure and other buildings around it and 2 planes, lands you in the same list…

It is probably actually easier to create on linux as it is foss and there are also good projects like eBPF which can maybe even simplify and make it more secure.

Line them up, shoot Toby three times anyway

If I had a gun with 3 bullets and I was in a room with Meta, Hitler and Bin Laden. I would shoot Meta thrice.

With 2.4kw you can just use it as a space heater, and a strong one at that!

Recently I found a new class of passive water aggregators in my snack. I call it ,“DO NOT EAT, SILICA”

Cops be living in the 60s:

• Has a low skill job
• Earns enough to buy a house and feed the famiky on a single income
• Easily get away with murder
• Twice as easy if it was a black person
• Easy access to drugs

If I break down your first point it’s basically:

• I have more important things to care about
• Farmed chickens live short lives so they are less important.

To that I will say that I too have more important things to care about, there are so many important things in my life that absolutely demand my attention. Yet I wash my dishes, spend time on Lemmy, play video games, sit in the toilet longer than I should, etc. The argument that this isn’t your #1 priority and so it doesn’t matter is illogical because we all do a thousand unimportant things every day. Rather I suspect that you have a different reason, maybe you consider this issue completely worthless? Maybe you just don’t want to face the consequences of caring about it? Idk.

As for the shortness and “purpose” of their lives. By your logic children that were born in concentration camps in the Holocaust are just as worthless. They would probably die just as fast and their “owners” only let them exist as part of the final solution.

As for the second paragraph. The thing is, that it’s not actually a matter of opinion, but rather a matter of logical consistency. You see, people care about their pets. People care about animal welfare. And if you ask the average person, is it okay to eat dog meat? Is it okay to grow puppies and slaughter them because you like puppy steak? Most people would easily tell you that it’s not okay. But if you ask them what’s the difference between a dog and a cow, they tend to not give any logical reasons. They say that dogs can understand better, or have more emotional connections, and all kinds of things that are scientifically and anecdotally proven false. You could say, I don’t care about animals. Or you could say, I care about animals. But when you start picking and choosing based on historical farming practices, you are missing logic and instead applying personal beliefs. As for ethics, it actually does relate to it a lot. When we’re talking about ethics, we’re talking about all kinds of things, not just humans. But even if we focus on humans, as humans our ability to empathize with other humans is also inherent to our ability to empathize with other animals. A very clear example of it is the historical abuse of black people. They were often compared to animals, and they even had black people zoos. And that’s not zoos where black people go to visit it, but rather zoos where white people go to see black people in cages. Historically, comparing humans to animals has been a very common strategy to de-humanize certain races or religions in order to abuse or murder and commit genocide towards them. You can see it with black people, you can see it with Jewish people, you can see it with so many different races and religions across the world and across many, many different periods of history. So because throughout all of our human history, animals have always been, in society’s eye, inferior beings meant to serve our purposes. We could always just say"this person is an animal" and essentially do to them what ever we want as they “server a purpose” or are a “pest”

And as for your last point, I find it a bit insulting that you consider me to be someone so delusional that I would ignore basic facts about the world. As someone who’s been a vegan for a very long time, I am very much aware of the fact that people can be aware of what’s going on and even sometimes face it for a while before giving up and going back. The sad thing is that people are not as strong-willed as they think they are sometimes, and ethics are not the thing that drives most people. And I know that a lot of people know how the sausage is made and still find it delicious. It doesn’t make the sausage ethical.

True but kind of removing the context of my message. The context is that the average person in a developed country does not need to consume any animal products to live a healthy life. This is factual based on our best scientific understanding of nutrition and the options present for the average person in a developed country.

Wrong word again. You mean extinction. A complete genocide of a species is a subset of extinction but extinction is not equal to or a subset of genocide.

I personally don’t think that there is enough text in that comment to accurately decide if it was smug or not, but even if you believe that it was smug, I’m not gonna tell you you’re wrong, but if you agree that the point is correct and you’re only downvoting it because of how it was worded, I think you’re doing more damage to the Lemmy community than you’re doing good, since even if it is a smug comment it is not overtly smug, it is not disrespectful, and the point is valid and very important considering that animal lives are already overlooked and undervalued.

You’re definitely using the word genocide incorrectly here. A genocide would imply that the other commenter wants us to kill all farm animals right now, when in reality what they’re saying is that they want us to stop artificially breeding them, meaning not creating new life. As for the animals that already exist, yeah ideally we’d find some way to help them live their lives out, but realistically this change isn’t gonna happen in one day, it’s gonna take years, and as we reduce artificial insemination these animals will stop existing and so this issue of having all of these animals around won’t be real.

This is the equivalent of using a condom, not the equivalent of shooting someone in the face.

Look, horrible people who understand, accept, and celebrate atrocities always have and always will exist. These are tiny percentages of society. Are you really that horrible of a person? Or maybe you are just so deep in denial that you go for a distraction like childish insults that help you avoid facing reality? Or maybe just a troll?

In any case, I will not engage with you any further. Please reflect on your own views, actions, and words.

What extreme inaccuracy?