kelipso

> he signed a declaration of intent to do that if a peace deal with Russia is made

Interesting. Thanks for letting me know a Ukraine-Russia peace deal will never be signed.

Ok…so they read the same article or watched the same video that went viral. And people repeat what’s in the article or video because it makes sense. It’s a very very common phenomenon in the internet. People do it all the time. Does not imply conspiracy.

“Talking points” for one man is simply the truth for another man. When you look at everything through a conspiracy lens, eventually the truth can become “talking points” and you end up in an island of delusion (I hope everyone still remembers the “vibecession” we had…, the inflation is not real actually, etc etc).

We seriously need to evaluate this “talking points” accusation lol. Propaganda accusations in general, they’re mindless and kills actual discussion.

It affects everyone who visits India, so it's not really an edge case. I'm sure there are plenty of towns in India that is primarily tourism-based.

That’s not how statistical implication works… Learn about sufficient condition vs required condition before you start criticizing people. Taking zinc and smoking cigarettes still increases your chances of cancer, for example.

Lol, someone completely missed the point… American propaganda is such a part of the culture, it gets barely noticed. Even movies that has military equipment, the military gets to have heavy input towards positive depictions of american military. US military has paid millions in marketing to all the sports organizations for promoting the military. Etc etc. This is just one aspect of the propaganda.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93entertainment...

The guy is using translation software to post it. So maybe don’t take the phrasing into consideration too much and focus on the intended meaning behind it.

It’s how science and discoveries are done too…

I think the accusation is more that they are propagandized sheep doing what the sheep are expected to do instead of actually thinking about what they are doing from a wider perspective.

There are kids under 18 who drink and plenty under 21 who drink. Still a very good idea to ban under 18 drinking, and not a terrible idea to ban under 21 drinking. You can do this for lots of rules and laws.

So yeah, they're basically saying "one can get around the rules" and nothing more than that. Therefore, there is no argument here, just a truism.

I don’t think “one can get around rules” is a very insightful thing to say, it’s just a truism.

They can force a by-election through various means, like a recall, for example.

> It would be very hard for people to condemn Kramnik for his cheating accusations all the while chess' top star Carlsen was on a bullying spree of his own against Niemann.

Doesn’t seem that hard from seeing all the comments here. I make an effort to keep away from chess forums online because of this stuff; most of these people are literally children, like under 14, but you can’t tell online lol.

A big percentage of the top grandmasters skip high school and almost none of them have went to college. They are “smart” in that they have the potential intelligence to learn that stuff, as demonstrated by them having learned chess, but they have basically no knowledge of statistics, mathematics, plenty of other general knowledge topics.

From that point of view, you should really consider them to be as knowledgeable about these things as high school dropouts. It was hilarious following the whole cheating thing and seeing them try to interpret these statistical results and coming to really stupid conclusions.

You could say it’s difficult to see them this way due to the cultural and historical perspectives on chess but this is the reality of top grandmasters at this time.

That’s quite a bit different from helping to kill people.

Let’s not lump every ethical issue into one. And not conflate SEO sleaze with aiding murder.

Innovation is a pretty neutral concept. It doesn’t care about things like “what if my model learns from other models” as opposed to “what if my model learns from data I painfully curated” if the model progresses the same.

Or if they want to do anything close to predicting what they will do in the future, like curious and interested humans tend to want to do.

> Are medical doctors less noble because they make massive salaries?

Aren’t they? Would you say a doctor who works for no money is more noble? I would.

All about perspective! Plenty of romance stories that start out with stalking. (Though I guess from a social normative conversation pov, you would want to keep up the kayfabe).

If you define paying attention as funneling MSNBC straight into your brain 24/7, then sure.

I remember this vaccine being part of political discourse, so I everyone should be extremely skeptical of any news about it.

Ok, this is definitely a reading comprehension issue that you have that you should fix somehow.

I think it's still the case, especially during summer. People get busy and less interested in online bs once they graduate high school or college. I've noticed, someone mentions their age here and it skews younger pretty often.

Harris was a known to be bad with respect to the war issue, became very obviously bad when she started campaigning with Liz Cheney. Trump was less known bad, so that difference should certainly have swayed your decision.

Most of the posters in this website are teenagers or in their early twenties. Let’s not be delusional here, this is still the internet.

Still doesn't make sense. You were criticizing: "But once a technology like general-purpose humanoid robotics exists, it’s costs are only likely to decrease over time."

But the point was currently general-purpose humanoid robots is not affordable by the average person like say cars or washing machines currently are, but it will be because the costs will decrease. There was no argument that the price will forever keep going down, just like the price of cars or washing machines are not expected to constantly go down.

What kind of argument is this? "Banning murder sure did work. I can't think of a single person who did any of those things. /s".

Bans would work for >90% of kids and that's good enough.

Those are all tech that almost everyone owns. Makes sense that mass production would reduce costs and then the cost reductions would go towards zero. For new technology that hasn't been mass produced, it's a completely different story.

Repeating true statements in a sarcastic manner doesn’t suddenly make them untrue statements.

You need to show at least some reference to that, or a name I can look up..