trention

More deserving of what? The argument is that wealth/social capital/whatever accumulated by your ancestors rightfully belongs and can be transferred to you.

>What did the white child do to deserve this?

Ah, the fallacy that everything you receive from your ancestors is undeserved. Will we be doing race-based asset appropriation tomorrow, comrade?

I think I'm not interested in discussing this with someone holding such a position which I consider completely deluded.

So, a company explicitly states that when push comes to shove, if you are white, you move to the front of the firing queue.

Remind me again, why would a white person (especially man) not put them on the back of the queue when deciding where to apply for a job?

Despite not living in the states (and in a country where this sh*t is illegal), I think I will make it my policy to never work for a (parent) company that has a diversity policy from now on.

No, there are zero barriers "in front" of minorities in the states, only advantages. There is no institutional discrimination against minorities, only against the now-majority, soon-to-be minority.

Affirmative action in college admissions and hiring has been a thing at least since the early 90s.

Given that affirmative action has been a thing in both hiring and college admissions for multiple decades now, that's of course incorrect. Those "innumerable advantages" in today's USA overwhelmingly go to (immigrant) minorities.

I'm so glad I live in a country in continental Europe where this shit is unconstitutional and any company that even tried to hint at doing this is going to get sued to oblivion.

It's making slow progress, much slower than expected 10 years ago, when in 2012 I was personally "promised" by a person with a start up in the field that I will be able to buy a L5 car in 5 years. That person is the equivalent of those promising me I will be able to generate a whole movie by a prompt by the end of this decade.

Not happening.

He is someone under the deluded impression that if he pitches his startup david koresh style in a hackernews thread, something will happen. I have new for this boyo - the moment you try to sell a service that emulates the catalog of {insert famous musician name here}, you are going to get sued to oblivion.

>In about a year, I don't know why anyone would dare work for Google, Amazon, or any of the other legacy businesses. They're going to be swamped and struggle to stay afloat amid the biggest single act of the Innovator's Dilemma to ever happen in our history.

Well, at least your drug dealer is apparently supplying you with the good stuff. I'll bet 10k any day that the combined value of all companies purely in the generative space will not exceed the value of a single FAANG company in 5 years. Yes, including Netflix.

>Art has to be generated by a human? >eliminate much of what typical people would call art

Can you give me a single example of something that was produced pre-2021 and that the average person will consider art that was not "generated by a human"?

No, it wasn't the topic for the parent comment which tilts the definition in this direction: >they have no idea as to "what" they are painting.

You just shifted to "you can't distinguish" - a common tactic for wanna-be AI hypists.

>I would bet most people can't tell what's been AI-generated from what hasn't.

This has literally never been the criteria for what art is.

Assuming this is even a feature users want (they probably don't; why would you have your ERP generate those instead of specialized software?), it makes 0 sense for SAP to build their own model instead of using an open-source one.

> it’s likely a matter of months before authentic-looking video of newly invented Seinfeld bits like this can be generated by anyone with a few basic, not-especially-technical skills

Let's define "authentic-looking video" as a clip at least 30 seconds long, with good lip-sync, integrating realistic voice, without significant logical incoherence and able to follow prompts that impact both the "scenario" and the "decor" of the video at least reasonably well. That won't happen in a year and there is a good chance it won't happen in 2 years. Production-ready quality for minute-long videos involving an actual plot, even after human post-processing (excluding very significant human involvement) will not be there in the next 5 years.

>no large tech company will be taken seriously if it doesn't have a competent image generation model in the wild

Wow, what a lot of bull. Defining a large tech company as 10k+ employees, I can assure you 90% of those won't ever touch image generation. Why would a company like SAP even consider this crap?

This:

>a repeated event that carries non-zero probability for an adverse effect increases the cumulative probability of said adverse effect when it recurs.

is true by logical necessity. It doesn't need peer-review citation because is it's a synthetic apriori proposition (and also straight out of Probability 101, which unsurprisingly you haven't attended/understood), it's not an empirical claim depending on data.

I would say "learn to read with comprehension" but I fear it's not possible.

>posting medical misinformation

Very rich coming from a person literally reposting conspiracy talking points off from antivax twitter.

It mentions 2 factors, both of which easily disprovable since excess deaths almost perfectly track case numbers and not vaccines administered and/or lockdown stringency. Better luck with your "it's complicated" bullsh*t next time.

Occam's razor is an entirely logical heuristic whereas confirmation bias is not. But it's good that you show so readily you have no grasp of even basic concepts.

It is axiomatically true that a repeated event that carries non-zero probability for an adverse effect increases the cumulative probability of said adverse effect when it recurs.

I don't need to show any work since covid infection AND reinfection has already been proven beyond any doubt to have non-zero risk of adverse effects on those that don't die from the infection. So either provide proof that covid reinfection carries 0 risk of permanent sequelae or stop wasting my time with the ridiculous claim that reducing the number of times someone is getting reinfected has no health benefit.

>attempting to avoid SARS-CoV-2 is utterly pointless

Maybe you should start by learning about cumulative probability and hence why n/2 infections carry less risk than n infections.

The fact that you are going to get reinfected has a significant bearing on your ridiculous implicit claim made here:

> You can get it when you're younger and healthier, or you can get it when you're older and sicker.

that you are better off getting infected sooner rather than later and that there is only negative value to be had in postponing infection.

>What you can't do, no matter how much you hide and curse at others, is avoid a respiratory virus.

You may want to keep that sentiment for when a 30+% IFR respiratory virus like MERS causes a pandemic which, given the law of large numbers, will absolutely happen. Then, the attitude "you can do nothing" leads to only one thing - total civilizational collapse. (BTW, measles and rubella are both respiratory viruses that I have avoided and will continue to avoid but thanks for again proving the point that you have no idea what you are talking about.)

But looking at your submission history, I don't intend to lose any more time with the definition of covidiotism.

Ah, here comes the conspiracy. Except that, if the culprit was "the economic effects from mandated lockdowns, and potentially, contributions from mandated vaccines", excess deaths wouldn't exactly (and it really is exactly) track case counts and instead would be evenly spread during the "lockdown" periods and the vaccine administration periods. Which is not the case.

Your "evidence" (to the extent it is evidence at all) is cherrypicked, for lack of a better world, sh*t.

The topic is that you are alleging a conspiracy for something which is exactly backed by the excess death data. For an explanation of which you have to invent a second conspiracy.

>Why would they submit for a finger injury that pays $500 when they can get a covid bump-up for $2000?

Because if this was routinely done, there will be some sort of proof. Where is the proof? Is there a third conspiracy to suppress it?

I am on topic. The topic is the conspiracy nutting around covid which you epitomize.

A wall of text having nothing to do with your initial false claim that colonialism is being widely "romanticized". Don't waste my time.

>Regardless, you're going to get Covid. It is inevitable. It isn't going away. You can get it when you're younger and healthier, or you can get it when you're older and sicker.

You know you're full of sh*t when you still treat covid as a one-time infection when it's perfectly clear that it will reinfect you at best on a biyearly basis.

>what "conspiracy" is it that you're claiming?

It's definitely a conspiracy to simultaneously claim that "hospitals" were deliberately misdiagnosing non-covid deaths as covid deaths while doing high mental gymnastics to rationalize while excess deaths exceed covid deaths and the excess comes exactly during the infection waves.

Not only has covid knocked ~2 years off the life expectancy in the US, it is likely to permanently knock a lot more of the healthy life expectancy. The long tail of sequlae is a reality and no level of denying and "I just want to live my life not worrying about it" will change that.

We definitely don't "live with" polio and measles, not in the sense the usual *** in the comments use this phrase.

We are also well on our way to stop living with HPV - but of course antivaxxers there are also sabotaging.

>Given all of above, it is dangerously cavalier to point out one singular cause of deaths only.

Occam's razor says your wall of text is just rationalizing bullshit.

We are not discussing the correctness of the argument, we are discussing the comment that the argument is being "overmade" which is blatantly false.