Levitz

>The more reasonable dating coaches are still out there. They simply aren’t part of the mainstream advice.

I really want to ask: what would their reputation be if they were mainstream, in your opinion?

I find it to be a very interesting spot of culture and society, like at one point you had a bunch of guys who were dealing with the cognitive dissonance between what society asks of men and what society wants from them in a context that wasn't yet politicized.

It is my impression that when it started showing up a little bit in the mainstream, the accusations of misogyny came, and with that most who actually cared about misogyny left the boat, in public terms. So now all we have left is Tate and the likes.

Why settle for play pretend autocracy when you can go all-in amirite?

Countries are not concerned about a lack of willing immigrants, and so they close their doors so the ones they want are the ones that get in.

>Period. That's it, and it's inarguable.

No it's not, it's actually extremely easy to prove wrong: J.K. Rowling.

I'm confused, this just happened recent no? Why does the date read "Jun 11, 2026" ?

>Anecdotally, talking to PRC citizens in circumstances where they don't need to worry about said surveillance (e.g., when they're vacationing in Japan and I want to pester someone and practice my mandarin)

I'm not sure you are aware that China has monitoring operations for its citizens outside China.

>There are things that are clearly bugs and clearly features. And a lot of things that are somewhere in between. It’s not black or white and as such perhaps not worth categorizing?

I appreciate the exercise of taking a step back and looking at the abstractions built, really I do, sometimes people take a liking to certain bugs, sometimes people despise features as if they were bugs, but this feels a bit of a Loki's wager situation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki's_wager

At the very end of things, bugs and features are just things the software "does", but I reckon it's worth it to sit back and think about the intentional and non-intentional result of the application of a design.

I meant to look for an example of Musk losing a lawsuit and I accidentally came upon another two.

Here and elsewhere you are just running propaganda, knowingly or not.

You can legally act against one, not against the other.

Not exactly a hard question.

>Resources means teachers qualified, able, and willing to teach in those areas.

Then the culture in those areas has to change.

It feels like every single other option has to be tried before considering that there's real, settled cultural issues that society ought to tackle. It is insane, and I mean "nobody who ever holds views like these should have access to power or authority on these matters" type of definition of "insane" that there is more concern about equality, or equity, or whatever the last brand of discrimination, than about the problems around not respecting authority and not valuing an education. It is utterly dysfunctional regarding societal growth.

It's not just being poor. It's not just racism. Yes those are absolutely issues in society, but equality of that degree is an affordance you can work on when you have a functional system.

There is no magic teacher, no magic principal, no magic anyone that's going to walk through the door of a school and "set them kids right" with a biblical amount of kindness and understanding. That's a fairy tale, it's utterly detached from reality and a pathetic refusal to look at the problem.

Did that "old, failed policy" yield better results than the current one?

Well, depends. "Socioeconomics" has been utterly abused as a concept for political gain.

Are top schools that way for social and economic reasons? I mean what else is there to blame? Are they that way because of being different in the department of what progressives actually mean by "socioeconomic factors"? No, not really.

Yes, but without a specific plane to intersect with, that still doesn't define a third point, if you want to check intersection with an axis, you'd need a third point in tridimensional space, for example.

>That being said though, I can feel you cringing through the screen.

Then I failed to express myself in writing. I'm definitely a fan of this kind of initiative and am not happy with the type of viability I think they have.

I might very well be projecting a whole lot of local dynamics of national identity, politics and culture though.

>As Husnes put it; Norway is a small country solving a problem every non-English-speaking nation will face: how do you build AI that reflects your language, your culture and your history? AI needs custodians, not just builders.

I'm afraid the answer is, mostly you don't.

Such a thing requires strong political will that, at least in my environment, seems basically impossible to align.

The costs are prohibitive, but beyond that, the type of person who cares about local representation like that is either completely fine with letting foreign companies implement it (after all, you can use ChatGPT in Basque if you want to) or is against the idea of AI altogether.

It is simply not feasible.

It's not either/or in strict terms, it absolutely is either/or in practical terms. When the conscientious engineer chooses not to take the 300k job, the next one in line does. If enough choose not to, it just became a 400k job.

Can you change society in such a way that nobody would take such jobs? In strict terms, sure, in practical terms it probably entails enormous costs, both economical and societal. And then you still have other countries.

There's an entire legal code filled with things on which we can't rely on the morals of the people. We can't stop theft, rape and murder, what makes you think that stopping engineers is any more feasible?

The best thing builders can do is use their knowledge and authority to pressure the other side.

>For the people following along at home, parent is talking about "Ley Orgánica 1/2004, de 28 de diciembre, de Medidas de Protección Integral contra la Violencia de Género" AKA LIVG, which is a law containing gender-violence provisions aimed at a specific form of inequality in intimate-partner violence, as we (Spain) has a lot of that.

Which, to be clear, does explicitly discriminate depending if the aggressor is a man or a woman, since it defines gender violence as something that men do to women, explicitly.

You are not even disagreeing. You are arguing in favor of such discrimination and justifying it. This is not the place to argue such matters but the point that generally considering a law to be constitutional or not is no guarantee is more than proven.

I don't think that anywhere in that delusional LARP you have considered that if such thing were to start, it would most definitely have the side you are on massacred.

Yeah I absolutely agree, if you ask me Andrew Yang should be getting calls about every day now, and UBI should be getting mentioned far more, but none of that is happening.

Opposing technology has a godawful track record and for some reason there's focus on that rather than tackling the actual problems. I bet that behind closed doors, directives are laughing at college students. Why, they are basically playing misdirection for them! It's fantastic for business.

>“Hateful woke culture”? You know the “woke” people are on to something when their critics project their own flaws back onto “woke culture” as a means to delegitimize it.

You might have had a point before a certain someone got shot in the neck for saying stuff. You don't anymore.

"Hateful woke culture" is actually a pretty apt descriptor. I've never seen violence being so widely, publicly supported and it doesn't seem far fetched at all to point to the intolerance of ideas in college campuses as a precursor to it. Acceptance of violence as a result to speech is at historical highs: https://www.fire.org/news/student-acceptance-violence-respon...

>AI tools are the only technology where I feel it's been shoved down my throat, it's inevitable and I can't adopt it at my own pace, it needs to happen and it needs to happen now. Not only it's inevitable, the messaging is also chock fully instigating fear, through anxiety, through the feeling of inadequacy if you aren't adopting it.

The only part here with which I disagree is that I feel very similarly about the smartphone.

Because the first three sound completely awesome and the latter two are basically propaganda. "innovating misinformation vectors" and "might doom humanity" are far better descriptors for about every social network out there, or even the internet. These same people would probably riot if social media was made to disappear.

As everything regarding college campuses opinion nowadays, it's down to politics. It's not about AI, it's about how this comes in a time in which Silicon Valley is aligning itself with a right-wing government.

This explains why when China shows up with progress the news are actually well received, why opposition to data centers aligns itself with left-wing ethos (environmental, minorities) even if it, on its face, has a ridiculous impact on either, why there's more concern for job losses the closer the industry align with the left (Anyone curious about what financial advisors think of AI? No?), why the technology is seemingly at the same time absolutely useless and the end of white collar jobs, and thus a disaster either way, etc etc.

There are a lot of real valid concerns, it's an incredibly serious matter, if anything it needs more political attention, but the current discourse is a complete flood of utter idiocy and doesn't deserve respect, nor attention.

I don't think college campuses are exactly representative of "everyperson sentiment".

There was a time in which they deserved some respect, as a result of free exchange of ideas among intellectuals. That's far behind by now.

The amount of justifications I'm seeing in this comment section perfectly suited for ICE to destroy any camera recording them is actually insane.

Then I'm just going to reiterate the "Talk to your therapist" and end this conversation.

You think *half of children* are going to have life-ending diseases that will "make the child's and the families life hell until they run out of resources"???

Grab a coin right now, try to call the result. If you fail, your child dies before age 10.

That was REALITY in the XII century. If you like that better by all means, contact a therapist as soon as possible.

>No man, after drinking water to quench his thirst, automatically wished if he had a bottle of cola..

On the contrary, we looked for wine way, WAY before capitalism. Waged war and murdered a whole lot of people for spices mind you.

If you have to stretch the meaning of words in order to try to paint the present as comparable to the past, you've already lost the argument.

I'm sorry but an statement like:

>There is nothing that I can feed my children without worrying how many poisons and microplastics or some endocrine disrupting shit it contains.

Is an obscene display of ignorance. Do you know what dysentery is? Do you have any idea of the immense amount of pain and suffering caused through the ages by famine? Sickness? Have you in your life taken a history course?

You worry about your children, how afraid were you of their mother dying when giving birth? Because that happened constantly.

I mean the word. It's obscene. That people like you can be so utterly detached from the harsh realities of nature is the greatest testament imaginable that by God yes, we do have it easy.

Off the top of my head: DOMS being little crystals in muscles, tongue having separate areas for each type of taste, food pyramid, blue blood in the veins, the appendix being useless, body temperature doesn't change disregarding whether it's exposed to cold or to heat, and a whole lot of stuff related to politics and history I'd rather just omit (I don't live in the US).

All things I learned in school which were wrong information.

Not to mention, the current state of education is far worse. I don't think most realize how low the bar is.