i agree with all of that.

Genuine question though, is it propaganda?

I mean it’s essentially:

“Police install draconian system to to target the crimes of the peasants, while continuing to ignore the rich, system working as intended”

Edit: wait no, actually i just saw the ‘Address fears’ section, they are clearly pretending this is the only problem.

A specific subset of crimes reduced, i wonder what the demographic of those criminals is.

Not to say you shouldn’t be arresting criminals, but they should be arresting all criminals, they don’t need a 1984 style facial rec system for a 10.5% drop in crime.

Well, i say that , but equal opportunity crime prosecution isn’t really what the police are for, so…

Actually arrest and prosecute the many many known criminals in the government and corporate world, no capital outlay in camera networks required.

Pretty sure that would give you a solid reduction in crime numbers as well.

TL;DR;

Why developers are abandoning Postman and its clones?

Enshittification

yeah, like most of these patents, it seemed to be more about the chilling effects than the actual enforcement.

There were a few variations in games over the years.

Still salty about that “Sanity System” bullshit patent by …surprise surprise…nintendo.

I think they are kind of like a production house with an additional kickstarter backing thing, or small individual investors of some other kind, i’m not sure.

Here is the wiki

Their programming is pretty faithy, have a look at the lineup and you’ll see from the titles.

I don’t care much for that genre, but i don’t see it as that much different than any other genre, it’s just not for me.

What i will say is that their productions are the faith based equivalent of straight to vhs action movies.

It’s generic dross with meh writing and some reasonable production values.

but that’s just my opinion, perhaps it’s worth a shot if you’re into that kind of genre.

these logo’s:

Though i will say the production value on the latest daily wire show was really high, probably the absolute fuck-tonne of money they spent on it.

Coding landed on the right solution pretty early with this: Use whatever tools you want, but you’re responsible for what you publish.

This is not the case, there is an abundance of evidence to the contrary.

That is an approach being taken by some, but it’s not coding specific and it’s certainly not a standard, by any means.

Also people have never cared about the environment.

Some people do, just not the ones who stand to benefit from the decline normally, and those just happen to be the ones who can meaningfully make a difference.

Running an existing model isn’t any worse for the environment than gaming,

If you ignore the difference in scale and significantly different usage profile, sure?

How many gamers do you think you’d need to equate to a 24/7 data centre serving models, or even a mostly local setup running multiple GPU’s at max capacity for a full work day, every day ?

and training them produces tools that can be useful as a coding package, like numpy for language.

Being subjectively useful isn’t a good argument against environmental impact, unless you have a good example of something so useful it could practically be compared to the impact.

Yeah, everything is bad for the environment,

Not technically true, but in modern society i kind of agree in general.

but I didn’t see this level of outrage about bitcoin and people still like to pretend plastics recycling works.

The outrage is different because the surface area is different, crypto was semi-niche and didn’t have the possibility to actively replace people.

More people are potentially impacted by this so you see more complaints (of varying levels of subjective legitimacy and accuracy).

Plastic recycling is an entirely different conversation but it’s always been a scam for the most part, people believe because that’s what they are told, repeatedly, and they have no reason to think otherwise unless they look in to it.

People aren’t actually mad at AI as a tool. People are mad about shabby work and increased spam. People are mad at losing their job when some jackass CEO fires them and being stung along when they apply for a new job.

Absolutely agree.

If we were brutally honest and insisted that AI has had little substantive effect on the economy (which is what the data actually says)

Citation? because to my (admittedly amateur) knowledge a large proportion of the US stock market is tied up in shenanigans to do with LLM’s and the related resources.

Unless you mean the effect of the outputs that have come from LLM’s, in which case , sure, it’s probably not much of an impact overall.

CEOs and politicians would be forced to take responsibility and be held to account for their stupid decisions.

That has such a vanishingly small likelihood of happening, there is a huge fucking list of significantly worse shit from recent history and actively ongoing that is being ignored because money.

I highly doubt that “CEO makes line go up for quarter by axing 3/4 of still-needed staff, because they have no idea what they are doing” is getting anyone more than a kickback slap on the wrist.

We should definitely still be trying though, I’m just managing my expectations.

Best I can tell, this anti-AI crap is a distraction and excuse not to talk about workers rights, education, and good democratic systems.

“anti-AI crap” is a broad category, but i agree there is a lot of “Look over here” going on.

That’s not LLM specific though , it’s the norm at this point.

don’t mac/ios runners require an actual mac/ios device ?

I don’t do apple stuff so i’m not sure.

Personally I would consider the extreme harm of animal agriculture against all of the sacrifices.

A sensible approach

I would consider long term malnutrition morally better than continuing the extreme harm against animals, but that’s a hard call that they didn’t make any statement on.

A subjective opinion i happen to agree with.

Evidently 47 million / 330m Americans are food insecure, so about 1/7 actually have to make a tough choice and I wouldn’t fault them nearly as much as the huge majority that eats meat just because they think it’s yummy.

I think this is on a sliding scale depending on the level of insecurity, but i think we generally agree on this also.

The reason let them eat cake is ridiculous is because it’s unbelievably out of touch with the common person.

Which was exactly my point.

To someone struggling with feeding themselves and/or their family “If your personal choice has victims, claiming it’s a personal choice ceases to be a valid reasoning to do it.” sounds a lot like someone talking down to you.

In this case 80+% of people have access to the “cake” (having a choice). It’s like saying “touch grass” is a sign if privilege because not everyone has the capability of moving around outside on their own.

Agreed, See response directly above.

You are technically correct, but the implication is “if you are in the small minority that cannot do this, you are not who I am referring to.”

That is not at all clear from the reply that i originally responded to. i think we might also disagree on what “small minority” means ( i wouldn’t consider 20% a small minority, but that’s subjective i suppose).

And even then, the implication with “personal choice” is that it’s not a tough moral decision where you are massively hurt by it.

Another implication not clear from their original reply.

Technically it is personal, and it’s a choice, but people don’t usually say “oh yeah I decided to give up not being freezing in the winter as a personal choice.” That’s a hard moral decision.

I agree, but :

THEM: Personal issues end where others right to exist begin. A personal choice is what color choice you wanna be wear in the morning.

THEM: If your personal choice has victims, claiming it’s a personal choice ceases to be a valid reasoning to do it. And yes. Choosing to eat meat has victims. You’re eating your victims.

Doesn’t convey that nuance ( for me at least )

There is absolutely no shot that at least 95% of people on lemmy do not have access to some sort of grocer in some way.

Not what i said, or what either of you said, though i will admit to probably taking the “walmart” part of that statement too literally.

Even so , access to a grocer isn’t the same as access to enough food which is explained in my previous replies.

83% of Americans have access to it, and lemmy skews heavily towards people in tech / more well off people.

I’m not sure where that number comes from but assuming it’s true it’s still a far cry from the 99% you claimed (though now I’m thinking that was possibly hyperbolic on purpose and i missed it)

and lemmy skews heavily towards people in tech / more well off people.

Agreed.

. Even having the time to look into alternatives to reddit and be knowledgeable enough to actually engage in it is a privilege which most people do not have.

Agreed.

I might make a post about it just to see, but that sounds so unlikely that more than 1/20 people that educated with the time to invest into learning how to use lemmy would be in the <20% who are food insecure

I’d also be interested to see the results of that but generally agree.

I think all of what you showed they said was fair. 83% of people having a choice is the vast majority, and bringing up food deserts and people who can’t afford anything else, without starving or great hardship, is something they (implied) they would obviously concede.

Disagree on this one for several reasons.

• i wouldn’t consider 83% a vast majority in this context, certainly a majority though, but that’s obviously subjective.
• 83% of americans is not 83% of people, you’ve stated both in your reply like they are the same thing, they are not.
• The implication was not apparent from their original reply(the one i responded to), they sort of clarified later, but still in a way that implied they assumed physical location was the only issue.

A revelation to me, evidently plant based diets are just on the whole cheaper compared to meat, though this may not be true in food deserts.

I’m not sure enough about this to claim on the whole for either direction, best i can say (anecdotally) is that the meat industrial complex has the capability to undercut the agricultural industry in some cases (on a calorie to calorie basis and including nutritional balance).

The link is interesting though, there’s more to the fiscal accessibility of non-meat food than i realised, it doesn’t cover opportunity cost, but as a general study of fiscal access it has a lot of information that’s new to me, i’ll have a proper read.

As for meal prep time, yes that is very fair but can be alleviated heavily with getting a 2nd hand instant pot and making meals in that which take unironically 30 seconds, which is shorter than a drive-thru.

There’s a few caveats/assumptions to that statement.

Access (in a fiscal and physical sense) to 2nd hand pressure cookers is not something i’d assume is widely possible with the kind of demographics that have been mentioned.

Not to say there would be no access, just that i’m not sure it’s as much of a game changer as you make it sound.

I’m genuinely not sure what 30 second pressure cooker meals you are talking about but it sounds like magic, i don’t mean this in an insulting way, if you could send me some examples i’d appreciate it, that would be very helpful to me personally.

Pressure cookers are arguably more dangerous than most other kitchen appliances, in that they are essentially bombs with a lot of safeguards, i’d be wary of purchasing a 2nd hand one of dubious origin, but i know that’s partly a privilege thing on my part so it’s possibly not as relevant as the other points.

TL;DR;

My entire original point can be summarised as:

Check your privilege, not everyone has the same circumstances as you.

Starting with unfounded absolutist proclamations weakens anything that surrounds it.

They never implied 100% of people

As i said:

ME: Regardless, i suspected it wasn’t as absolutist as it seemed, which is why my reply was prefaced with “If you truly believe that statement applies 100% of the time (in this context),”

they said if your personal choice can be criticized if it has victims. Most people don’t view “buy food I can afford or I/my family starve” as a personal choice.

Generally that’s a reasonable point to make, which then leads in to the conversation about what constitutes a choice.

like your example of people making a “sacrifice” for their ideals, at which point does a conscious sacrifice no longer qualify as a “choice”.

Is it choosing to starve ? long term malnutrition ? Heating vs food ?

It is not even close to “let them eat cake.” 8/10 people are not in poverty, and 7/10 could without much hardship reduce their meat consumption to near zero. 9/10 peasants could not eat cake.

Just to be clear, are those ratios legit or just an example?

Either way the way you are using them doesn’t make sense.

The “let them eat cake” reference was to imply they were making statements without any consideration of their relative privilege.

Not to the same degree as a royal that doesn’t understand the peasantry, but in the same vein.

“You live near a walmart” is true for the majority of Americans, and probably 99.9% of people on lemmy.

I can’t even begin to address that level of …i’m not even sure what to call it.

I’m just going to assume you don’t really believe that 99% of ALL people on lemmy live “near” to a walmart.

The implication is almost anyone reading that statement has no excuse, and that if you don’t live near anywhere you can get vegetables, then you are one of the exceptions implied by you not starving not being considered a “personal choice.”

As i said previously, physical accessibility is only one factor affecting the ability for impoverished people to access enough food for a nutritionally healthy diet.

I’ll quote it here for you :

ME: Assuming you have a home, even if you lived next door, that’s not even close to a guarantee you’d be able to afford a continuous level of food that matches your ideal and also reaches a level of healthy nutrition.

If you need examples of another, there is fiscal accessibility (affordability).

Even if you can physically get to it, if you can’t afford it , it’s not accessible.

This includes :

• outright not being able to afford something
• having to choose between the cheaper (and nutritionally more acceptable) meat options vs the more expensive non-meat option.
• being able to consistently afford this level of food without detrimental effects on your overall fiscal situation.

There’s also temporal accessibility, can you get to the food in the time around your 3 jobs ? do you have the time and mental bandwidth to prepare a meal rather than microwave something.

And before you start in, yes prep and shopping time apply to all types of foods, I’m saying this is a exacerbating factor when taken with the other two.

Regardless of how you feel about it, the meat industry is big enough in scale and reach that they can price their meat mush at a lower price point that non-meat alternatives in a non-trivial amount of situations.

I’m not even making the argument that it’s a majority, I’m saying it exists and shouldn’t be disregarded.

Arguably you could consider that a personal choice, but when their example is “which T shirt to pick” I don’t think that’s their implication.

It was, they mention personal choice and them immediately follow up with this:

THEM: If your personal choice has victims, claiming it’s a personal choice ceases to be a valid reasoning to do it

They follow up with hyperbolic examples of when someone might get a “pass”.

THEM: This is the “what if you were on a deserted island and there was only a single cow in it. Would you eat it”

Then follows up with a reply with “vast majority” and “Maybe the Inuit had to 300 years ago. You have a Walmart near you. Be real.”

Fucking right?

Food in a bottle with little to no prep is where it’s at.

I’m still waiting for them food cubes from starfield

When i can occasionally get focused on some meal prep (or remember that meal prep exists) just coking up an industrial sized VAT of generic food+sauce and sticking that in the freezer is also a good one, if you can negotiate with the brain to make it happen.

I mean the reason they implied you were being obtuse is clearly they are not talking about people in poverty or people who have no other choices.

That is in no way clearly understood from that single absolutist statement or the context around it.

They additionally went on to reply with

Maybe the Inuit had to 300 years ago. You have a Walmart near you. Be real.

That’s not a reply (either literally or in context) that is considering poverty.

It’s not quite a “let them eat cake”, but it’s in the same general vicinity.

Regardless, i suspected it wasn’t as absolutist as it seemed, which is why my reply was prefaced with “If you truly believe that statement applies 100% of the time (in this context),”

My issue, as i very explicitly explained, is that using such absolutist statements gives the impression of mental inflexibility which subsequently weakens the perception of any surrounding statements (for me at least).

If I’m having a conversation about science with someone and they opened with “The world is flat” I’m for damn sure going to scrutinise everything else they say after that, even if it sounds reasonable.

About 70% of people in the US have the option to eat at least 5x less meat, if any at all, yet look for any excuse they can get to not do it. I grew up with people on very low incomes who were vegan, and this was 18 years ago when vegan options were far less available than they are now.

Sure, I’m not arguing against any of that, it sounds plausible.

I’d argue there’s a conversation about the difference between “vegan options” and the general availability and accessibility of food that qualifies as vegan (and how that has changed over nearly 20 years) but that’s a different subject.

They were not “privileged” by any stretch yet they saw it as a moral wrong and sacrificed to follow their morality.

Privilege is relative , people scraping by on 3 full-time jobs just to get food and pay rent aren’t rich or affluent but (subjectively) they are more privileged than the unassisted mentally ill person living on the streets.

I assume the people you knew made their choices after weighing their options and that’s all anybody can ask.

If they subsequently harmed themselves or their loved ones in the short or long term then that’s their sacrifice to make.

However, judging someone else for feeding their family with the food the can afford rather than taking the “moral” high ground isn’t something i can get behind.

And “You live near a walmart” isn’t an argument made by someone who’s considering their relative privilege.

All the other vegans and I agree. We had a meeting.

I fucking KNEW it, secret vegan Star Chamber is always on my bingo card.

All i need now “proof that koala’s control the weather” and some sort of under-earth morlock analogue.

but yeah, meat industry is horrific, as is a lot of the underpinnings of modern society, my previous response wasn’t arguing against that.

hmm, I’m interested in what @[email protected] take on this would be.

It is indeed the “no ethical consumerism” argument and as I said it’s an interesting conversation to have.

I wasn’t arguing against your general premise. I specifically called out the lack of flexibility in your statement and what that implied to me.

That isn’t the case for me though. It isn’t for you either. It isn’t the case for the vast majority of people.

Maybe the Inuit had to 300 years ago. You have a Walmart near you. Be real.

And this is the exact kind of privilege and/or lack of imagination I was talking about.

It wasn’t about word choice as much it as what that word choice implied.

It suggests you don’t understand how limited the choices can be under poverty, or how widespread it is.

I wasn’t positing it as a gotcha, I am “being real” when i say there are very real circumstances (for a non-trivial amount of people) that don’t adhere to your ideal.

Assuming Walmart was your example because it’s what you know and not because America is the only place that exists, physical distance is far from the only factor.

Assuming you have a home, even if you lived next door, that’s not even close to a guarantee you’d be able to afford a continuous level of food that matches your ideal and also reaches a level of healthy nutrition.

The easy example is literal starvation, where it’s not possible to secure enough food of any kind, let alone the kind that adheres to your premise.

This isn’t an obscure thing from 300 years ago, this is a reality, today.

I wasn’t saying you were wrong, i was saying your argument possibly comes from a position of privilege and if you think this is a 300 year ago problem, I was correct.

edit: clean up

In modern society, almost all personal choices have victims, it’s all connected.

If you want to argue the degree of separation between the choice and the victim that’s an interesting conversation to have.

If your personal choice has victims, claiming it’s a personal choice ceases to be a valid reasoning to do it.

If you truly believe that statement applies 100% of the time (in this context), that implies a lack of imagination, mental flexibility and a level of privilege that taints anything else you might say with the idea :

“If they can’t think of a single scenario where that statement doesn’t apply, how much thinking are they really putting in to the rest of what they say”

For some, eating meat is life and death, through no fault of their own.

So the issue you have is with the wording, not the sentiment ?

Then let’s get those words in a form you’ll understand.

“so many other good tools out there that don’t actively and routinely introduce “features” and “options” that increase the potential surface area for attacks and bugs, often to introduce anti-consumer functionality to the detriment of user experience.”

To avoid confusion, i’m talking about Microsoft as a whole, their ecosystem in general and the list of easily findable examples of them doing sketchy shit to push ads, data collection and other anti-consumer nonsense.

The rest of your reply aside, I do disagree with one point in particular.

Where is your linkedin or github profile showing projects before ~2022?

A github public profile and linkedin history are not reliable indicators of comparative programming competence.

I.e it’s entirely possible to be a competent programmer and also not want to participate in self marketing or promotion.

They are sometimes indicative of the soft skills that go along with being a programmer.

Non standard actions in response to stressors is a known possibility with some neurodivergent diagnoses.

Calm responses to subjectively large issues or dangerous situations as well as subjectively oversized reactions to seemingly normal stimuli (sound being a common example).