146 karma · joined April 17, 2019
American legal cup ? metric cup ? Canadian cup ? or one of the other ones.
Even if you narrow it to just the roughly the US you still have 4 + metric , so 5 different options.
and that doesn't even account for people just using the cup they have to hand.
It's not a rant at you, it's frustration with non-specific, arbitrary units.
That's assuming that we are somehow outside of nature.
> We don't have to invent ex post facto explanations for why something is the case in nature or why there is some un-intuitive reason as for why the natural way is better.
We don't have to , no , but we do , because that's how we learn.
Nobody was claiming the "natural" way was better, just that it might serve a purpose.
It hurts my soul that anybody producing a table such as that is using something as vague as a "cup" in their calculations.
What i actually meant was there is little to gain for individuals who aren't already relatively wealthy.
For those living at or below the poverty line, 8% of nothing is nothing.
It isn't until you get to those who can afford to lock up reasonable sums of money for multiple years to benefit practically from that 8%.
"Best" is all kinds of subjective though.
Unless you are already ultra wealthy there is little to gain from individuals entering the stock market directly.
It's a vehicle for those with power and/or money to gain more power/money by siphoning it from everyone who isn't them.
Sure, some people make money, in the same way people in a casino make money.
The house, however, always wins.
- Control, also profit
- Control, albeit in a less direct form than housing also data and profit
- The pretense of caring about privacy issues, so politics and control
- Profit/control
If you ask, "why?" for almost anything in today's society it'll come down to money/power, which are functionally mostly the same thing.
Exceptions exist sure, but they are called exceptions for a reason.
My perspective at least, i'm sure others think differently.
https://www.jeffgeerling.com/blog/2024/corporate-open-source...
If you prefer video, this is actually a transcription of the youtube video here :
Not to say we should all wait for the powers on high to fix things for us, but be realistic in our expectations about what most people are able to affect as a single person.
I'd also argue that what some would consider whining is in fact a solution or at least a prerequisite for one.
> The author doesn't give any practical solution to the problem, or things anyone could do to improve their specific or general situation.
Are you implying that nobody should be writing about anything they don't have a practical solution to ?
and
> we call that whining.
who is we ?
It requires investigations and evidence and it metes out fines for non-compliance, eventually.
A fine doesn't reverse stolen/hacked data, nor does it work particularly well on the megacorps who just eat it as the cost of doing business.
If there is more profit to be had than it would cost in fines then that's not a deterrent, its a tax.
Until the fines are proportionate to the offence (whatever the profit is/was + punitive percentage) it's only going to deter those who can't pay the current fixed rates.
What part of my reply stood out to you as the part that shows i didn't understand what i was reading ?
All i was pointing out is that leaving out a section of a sentence you are trying to explain your interpretation of is not a good way to convey that you are arguing in good faith.
Especially when that section could be thought of as not neatly fitting in to the narrative you are trying to explain.
extra welfare + women voting, (both difficult for libertarians blah blah), have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron.
edit:
downvote all you like, it doesn't magically make a quarter of a sentence not exist.
Sorry, i phrased that poorly, i was referencing my own comment, not because i thought you had ignored it but because i had just replied to the other comment.
It probably shouldn't have reference the other reply.
> Not sure, but performance comes after making sure you have enough VRAM to run your workload in the first place. I doubt an ASi chip would beat most datacenter-class training cards, but if a consumer just wants to train a model locally without much regard for getting the best possible performance, there is more value-for-money.
That mostly makes sense.
Though personally,if i'm dropping car money on hardware to run a model then i'd really want to know the type of difference in power, are we talking about the ASi taking twice as long or are we talking orders of magnitude?
Not a question for you specifically, just a thought.
I'll see if i can find any benchmarks for the differences in compute.
Thanks
Would an ASi machine and Dedicated GPU with the same amount of respective RAM have the same performance compute-wise?
Because if so you can get a good pc with 96GB of machine ram for significantly less than $4000.
Unless the claim is that an M3 Max MacBook has equivalent GPU type compute power as a dedicated GPU?
I might have missed it but i also can't see any kind of review (peer or otherwise).
That two things can be true makes sense.
> It's a zero sum game, and it's the morally right thing to do.
These two things can be true, they aren't in this case, but they can be.
In case it's a misunderstanding i'm going to state clearly, with emphasis:
> Helping the ~ [less] fortunate ~ isn't a zero-sum game.
Helping all people everywhere might be ( i haven't really considered that enough to have a solid opinion ) but helping a subset of people without impacting another subset of people isn't zero sum when the sum of those subsets isn't the whole.
In numbers:
The whole = 10
-----
Less fortunate group a = 2
Less fortunate group b = 2
Others = 6
-----
It's possible to get group a to 3 without bringing group b down to 1, because helping the less fortunate groups isn't zero sum.
I'm simplifying here because the whole being a fixed 10 isn't accurate either, but it does illustrate my point.
> But christ, just call a thing what it is.
I will, thanks ?
edit: my tiny maths failed me, updated numbers
Systematic oppression and/or long term ramifications of period of oppression is provably true.
ignoring the politics of it i don't think a straight up cash injection would be an efficient means of solving any of the mid to long term problems, but it is certainly an effective measure in helping short term survival.
The difference between "better access to education and employment for my kids so they can live better lives" vs "food and medicine so my children don't die this month"
> A lump sum of $15k to every Black person in the US doesn't fix the problem. $15k buys them one major medical treatment, if that.
Though i think i know what you mean, "15k to every black person" is fairly broad and i think a bit reductive in this case, it would probably need to be something weighted against need and how much the person was affected by the situation being addressed by the funds.
Problem is it's really difficult if not impossible to do that effectively, think of it like a whole society version of a class action lawsuit, except the payout amount is directly tied to the level of effect the original issue has had on each person, individually.
To be clear, this doesn't mean "non-black person X" doesn't get support and help. Ideally this would need to be something on top of an already working support system for everybody.
Everyone gets equitable support up to a certain level, certain groups get additional support where needed because to get them to an equitable level they need additional support as they've started at a lower starting point due to whatever fuckery occurred way back when
This is some utopia-level idealism though and I'm not expecting it to happen in the real world, but a good faith attempt would be nice.
> Same for education. A lump some might put a single generation through college. But, if there are systemic impediments to Blacks attending college (money, quality of primary and secondary education, etc), a lump sum transfer doesn't fix it.
It doesn't fix all of it, but it might fix some of it in an incidental way, though as i said, lump sum probably isn't a good strategy for long term fixes.
> At best, it creates a generation of better educated Blacks who might push their kids into college, but all the other structural problems still exist.
Yes, but the overall bump in education (assuming education is a reliable means of measuring future quality of life) would go some way to beginning to fix the structural problems.
> Basically, we should address those problems head-on and with solutions that solve the problem permanently (or as close as possible).
Agreed, but that should also be part of a plan to alleviate the short and mid term problems as well.
No it isn't , it's usually framed that way for politically derived reasons.
Helping one less fortunate person doesn't have to take directly take from another less fortunate person, there are more than just the less fortunate in the game.
it's an often parroted point right now, but if the ultra rich were taxed at the same rate as everyone else ( in whatever region was appropriate ) there would be a large influx of money that could be used to improve public services, support networks, education etc.
I personally don't think it would be used for that in any meaningful way, the system as a whole is broken, but it could in theory.
> I'm not less fortunate.
> I support helping the less fortunate more.
Agreed, same
> And I realize doing so is going to require sacrifice on my part -- I'm going to have to pay more in taxes/redress to fund that help.
Also agreed, in principle, but what you can personally provide pales in insignificance when compared to the sheer grinding machine that modern capitalism has become.
It's similar to "no plastic straws to stop climate change", yes, but also how about the 80+ % of actual climate change caused by the fossil fuel industries. less of a "whataboutism" and more of a yes, but also fix the bigger fucking problem.
As US reparations is the first example let's use that.
it's less "screw those white people because they don't deserve it after what their ancestors did" and more "this group of people are actively struggling because some assholes decided they weren't going to treat them as people for 300 years, we as a society are somewhat responsible for that so let's try and give them a hand up to where they would have been"
Also, in case the "yes but white people struggle also" argument is in the forefront of your mind, yes they deserve help too. Helping the lees fortunate isn't a zero-sum game.
Original sin is indeed bullshit, but that's not what this is.
This is likely a bad faith argument with reference to an actual fallacy to give it the air of pseudo legitimacy.
To use a bad faith interpretation to attack a non-existent position is pretty effective.
You're assuming they don't want the general public accessing the website, perhaps they do and would also like the revenue that comes with the ad's served on the site, because that is, broadly speaking, how the ad funded model works.
I personally think ads are a terrible model but a paywall is an entirely different business model with different considerations.
Genuine question,seriously, not an attack, is it you who decides this for everyone or is this a personal decision kind of thing ?
> ad blocking is unethical.
If we are solely going by personal ethics then almost all big ad-tech is unethical in it's implementation, tracking, carbon footprint, extensive profiling with no opt-out.
Even if you adhere to your idea of not going back if it doesn't suit you the damage is already done privacy-wise.