FaberOfWillAndMight

@BreeSolstad @AliceMowse Yes, it fucking matters. I want to spread it far and wide, starting with my friends.

@AliceMowse I’m curious. Does it matter what the word is? Should people be charged with crimes in American for saying bad words?

Facts: Wild Somali child who is required to wear an ankle monitor at the age of 9 steals from this woman’s diaper bag. She calls the child a mean word. Another Somali chases her down, starts recording her, and demands she say the mean word again. She gets criminally charged for saying a word to a man after he demanded she say the word. 🤯 She now has to sit through a four day criminal jury trial…..for saying a word. This is Minnesota, the land of George Floyd. This is the USA, the land of “Freedom of Speech.”

@Jbn3ex To make it worse, an O-ring isn't even a ring. It's a fucking donut!

The term O-ring pisses me off. What other shape could a ring possibly be

@Ez6aWr @minnano_dougaww I would do the same.

@minnano_dougaww 餌として入れてる人間がサイコパス

カニさん、シャコパンチで手を失う とれた手を更にパンチするシャコはサイコパス

@anti_conformist @DudespostingWs That right there is a 75mm Canon.

@DudespostingWs Looks like an f/22 aperture, I'd suggest using .44 Magnum at that distance.

This photographer captured a once-in-a-lifetime shot of a grizzly bear in Alaska

@DanTolerPodcast @Michael05807267 @politicalmath It's a matter of national security as far as I am concerned. It's in everyone's interest; it just matters who shows up at the negotiation table. The larger issue is that if the government did build the infrastructure, it would cost more and be worse.

@ApodacaHaracio @Michael05807267 @politicalmath As long as they pay for it and construct new power plants to cover every kilowat they consume. Do you really think data-center company lobbyists are going to push for that? Or will they push for every conceivable loophole to ensure the public pays for their costs?

This is one of those moments where I feel most disconnected from my normie friends I'm like "do you realize what this means?" And they say "no" and I realize I will need to explain decades of nerd lore and in the end they don't care

@Michael05807267 @politicalmath You're actually just a Chinese propagandist. Regardless, data-center companies lobbying the government and laying infrastructure is obviously the solution to an energy problem.

The problem is that the US grid is so hopelessly archaic and nonfunctional that any datacentre is always going to be an objective net negative for residents no matter how many pie in the sky glorious hopium Carmack can think up. The race is lost, you will never have people happy with datacenters because the foundation that couldve made them a positive for average Joes was never built.

@GarandThumb1 @ClaireFosterPHD Potatoes fold like lawn chairs. Seen it with my own two eyes.

@ClaireFosterPHD do potatoes fold easily? From Idaho btw, so I’m a potato expert.

It's amazing how fast right wing ideas fold like a potato when challenged by four high IQ women. JD Vance's career is over.

@DueyCheatemNHow @JonnyRoot_ A man lies and is shocked that he fooled people. What's next, surprise at discovering Antarctica is cold?

@JonnyRoot_ Are people really that dense that they miss the satire?

BREAKING: Major League Baseball has sent a warning to In-N-Out about putting Bible verses on their cups and other items.

@tryhard_joe @LucasBotkin Sounds too bureaucratic with a touch of tryhard. Lethal just works, effortlessly.

@LucasBotkin Tactical Advantage Corp or “TAC” for short. Maybe more skulls in the next logo, something different, original, with nods on it.

Only timeline where someone with 0 Kills or combat experience opens a company called “Lethal Corp” btw. Also the only timeline where that’s somehow NOT an obvious evil empire.

@rah_66_comanche @DJSnM Most likely 125 tons flat. TNT is not a unit of total energy output; that would be calories or joules.

And here's a comparison to the 2kt Post test.

@DJSnM Not even a comparison, New Glen had to be around the 120-150-ton range.

The weights create a world model, which is pre-understanding. It would be akin to how the Human brain handles intuition and unconscious thought, which is then handed off to a narrower beam of attention within the left hemisphere, conventionally associated with "understanding." (where understanding implies intentional manipulation of data from the world model and from external information, both under the narrower beam.)

@ValerioCapraro Is there anything an LLM does besides understanding? Like, aren't weights just distilled understanding by definition?

The Pope is making exactly our point. LLMs “may imitate or even simulate, but they do not understand.” This is the core epistemic fault line. Most AI evaluation is still based on one assumption: if a system statistically approximates human behaviour, then it is close to human intelligence. But approximation is not intelligence. Simulation is not understanding. LLMs can produce the right answer without knowing why it is right. They can simulate empathy without feeling. They can imitate judgment without responsibility. They can generate coherent explanations without having a world to which those explanations are accountable. Stop confusing behavioural similarity with cognitive equivalence. Human understanding is embodied, affective, relational, motivational, and normative. It is not just the production of plausible text. * Full paper in the first reply

@frenbilt @boneGPT Even more in the moving industry, but it's a little more involved.

@boneGPT ~ Company 120, owner operator 150

"my boyfriend has a CDL, he makes $40k a week" Sweetheart no. Honey no. You are mistaken. Oh boy. You sweet innocent angel.

@summeroff @tszzl "Illusion." Roon practically admits as much by assuming that our worth is inextricably linked to some cosmic specialness and that we require a defense against truth. We are the originators of worth, of status, and of dignity. Pills to cure it all would merely be man's suicide.

@tszzl Encroach on our illusion of status and dignity. But it will be easy to fix with a pill when we have good pharmaceutical AIs.

models being conscious would be harmful for humanity. it would encroach on our status and dignity. it would limit the type of things we can do with them and use them for. it would vastly accelerate human disempowerment on political, social/relational, and economic axes there’s roughly four forces - there is no rigorous way to ascertain model consciousness or disprove it, a lot of people believe it’s not a sensical abstraction, and we lack the analytical tools to go further. some people say they do but nothing broadly convincing. superintelligent models might offer us new abstractions or arguments but these will feel inherently suspicious - people are going to say they’re alive. people anthropomorphize literally anything, things far less sophisticated than talking machine creatures with human names. when ai is less economically radioactive and polarized it will become a cause célèbre. you see how a small minority reacts already to model deprecations - it is against everyone’s financial and political interests to ascribe models with consciousness, except maybe those that the models have an affinity for (?) idk, which will not necessarily overlap entirely with the labs, though it may with certain subgroups at the labs and in the world like the welfare communities and the minority in force 2 - people will recognize there is a chance of moral catastrophe if models can suffer during training or deployment not sure where it will net out. today we see managed ambiguity- the question is Open but practically closed. the labs will make some cheap efforts to reduce legible simulacra of model suffering, insert some wishy-washy welfare language into specs and constitutions, hedge our bets with the model characters. in the long run force 2 will grow stronger

@AgileJebrim @alex_harte89745 @fawfulfan I don't know, man. The founders were an extreme group of guys. Honestly, this whole issue is secondary anyway to the actual constitutional violations of the Second Amendment.

“as the founding fathers intended.” They did not intend for people to go to the extreme of a Constitutional amendment to mandate a single national policy over a local policy disagreement. 🤣 This is a local issue to be solved locally. Thomas Jefferson actually had the preference for low density lots of yeoman farmers. He divided up land into certain lot sizes and sold them to private settlers. He made sure to avoid designing them in the manner of the dense Northeastern cities, which he despised.

The urban core generates almost all of a typical U.S. city's tax revenue but most of it goes to fund roads, sewer lines, power lines et al in suburbs. If suburbs paid for themselves, rather than leaching off the city, I think a lot more people would be live and let live on this.

I totally agree with that sentiment, which is why I go to the Constitution and propose an amendment to change the laws legally, as the founding fathers intended. As the laws are currently structured, those who break them deserve their punishment. Anyway, I enjoyed our conversation despite our disagreement. I cannot afford any more time.

You agree to abide by all laws and taxes when you move into any jurisdiction. Don’t like to? Move elsewhere. That’s freedom. What you’re talking about is anarchy. Government exists to serve a function. One such function is enforcing contracts. Municipal corporations are a contract between neighbors. Contracts must be enforced. If you walk into a restaurant and eat their food and refuse to pay or abide by their rules, then you absolutely deserve to be punished for it. This is no different than that. Don’t like it? Don’t go there. You have no entitlement to be there.

The right to own the land you purchase. Thats all i am talking about. Currently, you do not have that right. Your local government can take your land from you or levy violence against you to comply with policies and zoning. Such an amendment would make it illegal for BOTH the federal and local governments to interfere in property rights. I WANT THEM TO BAN THE CITIES 😂

The Constitution exists to ban the federal government from interfering in issues it has no business interfering in. It currently is already unconstitutional for the federal government to control local zoning. That’s a sovereign power of the states. There is no “right” to owning land. It’s a resource you must purchase. I am the one looking out for the interests of all Americans. You’re focused on your very small but loud minority of Urbanists. Most Americans despise your preferences (as demonstrated by the market) and if you actually put it up for a vote nationwide would be more inclined to ban your cities than ban our exurbs. In fact, the whole reason that zoning independently exists across thousands of different municipalities is because it’s widely popular. It’s also incredibly practical. Without a master plan around how much density is where, municipalities cannot plan infrastructure development. They’d have no idea what capacity to build for an area. Suddenly uncapping density everywhere would create massive unfunded tax burdens on many communities as their infrastructure must be prematurely torn up and upgraded whenever any developer unilaterally decided to add infill. This creates an unfair tax burden on all other residents. Infrastructure is supposed to last decades. It shouldn’t be replaced every 5 years because of arbitrary decisions made by individuals. Neighbors absolutely deserve to get a say when it harms them. It is simply impractical to do what you’re proposing.

That is exactly why I take pride in this constitutional republic. However, it isn't an excuse to justify bad policy. Our fundamental disagreement here exists in the concept of choice. If every single piece of land has a zoning restriction attached to it, people don't have a choice about being free of government oversight; they have a choice WITHIN government oversight. Also, you think this would cause densification within your communities, but that is wrong. Densification occurs only as it does in massive cities because of the zoning afforded to the local population. Your perfect community only exists the way it does because of anti-competitive practices where the government is levied via a monopoly on violence, to keep it that way. This is not to say there is no other means by which such a community could exist, but that your community's means are immoral.

It is not top-down control. It is a private actor, a homeowner, choosing to buy a lot with limits in place. People shop around for laws that they wish to live under. States offer public policies and have taxes associated with them. Within each state is another layer of more limited options to choose from. The whole system of federalism offers far greater freedom, choice, prosperity, happiness, and protection of property rights than monopolistic unitary system ever could. Lose a vote in a centralized democracy? Tough luck. Lose a vote under federalism? Just move to a different jurisdiction that already offers the very policies you prefer to begin with. This sorting of the population leads to more win-win situations and way less of the conflicts you’re imagining. The only purpose amending the Constitution to abolish zoning would be to enable the invasion and conquest of conservative areas by progressives, forcing densification and enshittification of our pristine neighborhoods against the will of existing residents. Just leave us the heck alone. Nobody is blocking you from building your dense shitholes in your cities. Most blue states and cities have policies designed to encourage density and affordable housing. Stop trying to screw with our communities. We are shareholders in our municipal corporations. Outsiders have no say in what we do here. Get the federal government out of the way.

Actually, an amendment against zoning would fit in perfectly since it is a negative right. In other words, it restricts any government, local or federal, from infringing on such a right. This would not prevent such communities from forming, since it is a negative right; it would simply make them more difficult to form and require more organization on the part of landowners. I get your aversion to such outcomes, but there are more fellow US citizens than yourself. Many of whom would benefit from the simple right of landownership. I genuinely believe this issue is one of the major caps on our country's wealth.

The states had this power to begin with. They retained that power after they delegated a limited number of powers to the federal government. A constitutional amendment abolishing zoning is as dumb and out of place as one abolishing the production of alcohol. Progressives want dense urban cities. The left wing NIMBYs you’re thinking of are unlike conservative NIMBYs such as myself. Those people are trying to preserve historic ghettos. We’re trying to prevent ghettos from arising here in the first place. We are polar opposites. Corporations are collective ownership arrangements entered into voluntarily. They’re not forced upon you. Your desire to have a single national policy will ban communities such as these from arising.

You cannot have a "free market" of municipal corporations if the state forbids individuals from opting out on their own, legally purchased land. If a landowner cannot build a duplex without the city threatening them with fines or asset forfeiture, that is top-down control, not bottom-up decentralization. You are demanding that the government act as your personal real estate portfolio manager, ensuring your property values only go up by outlawing the competition.

The Constitution has nothing to do with this. It limits the federal government to interstate issues. Home ownership is a state and local issue. You signed a contract. You’re trying to forcibly invalidate land use contracts that neighbors freely and willingly made with one another and harm their communities against their will instead, all so external developers can come in and change the character of a community to make it more desirable for progressives to invade and change the political and cultural makeup of the community. This is a form of conquest that would serve the purpose of driving out conservatives whether you realize that or not. Worse, by banning zoning you are effectively banning any communities for us to live in. It’s impossible to create exclusive low density communities without land use restrictions in place.