The subjects that you can’t even bring up without getting downvoted, banned, fired, expelled, cancelled etc.
Marxism, depending on the audience.
gun rights
Is it though? As long as one is relatively reasonable. There’s even gun communities here, even if they’re pretty dead at the moment. Time for me to come up with some memes maybe.
I guess so, it’s just that if I say I support the right to own a gun, I get downvoted in most communities
Yeah, in heavily left-wing spaces guns give people the wigglies. Even if it’s not rights, the general fact we live in a world with them is something people try to memory hole.
You and I define “heavily left-wing” quite differently then. The far-left has always supported gun rights and armed struggle. It’s the political centre and parts of the right that are blanket anti-gun.
With women, bathroom talk. With the boys we always talk about shit and piss and crack each other up. But mention anything related to that around a girl, she’ll look at you as if you killed her dog.
“ChatGpt is really good if you use it properly”
Gets torrents of down votes every time. But I literally use it a lot at work and it’s brilliant.
This is my answer too. It’s crazy how much hate a tool can get
I’d probably also develop a short temper about spanners too if they were being shoved in my face by tech companies as hard as chat bots are
We’re excited to announce the new Sony WH1000XM6 headphones, enhanced by the power of spanners!
I don’t see why my headphones need a sp-
Conveniently built in to your headset, you can use the spanner to adjust bolt tightness on-the-go!
Okay, but that’s not wh-
We’re proud to be leading the market in spanner-augmented products to bring a new level of convenience to your life.
…
Spanner may sometimes only appear to tighten bolts. Please don’t ask us the energy cost of manufacturing the spanner.
The left lane, and how no, it’s not for going as fast as you want to drive.
It is also the fast lane so move TF over if you are moving slower than the other lanes
Speed limit is the speed limit. End of.
If someone wants to go above the speed limit in the fast lane, then they’re contravening road rules.
No matter what social norm people believe there to be, it doesn’t have precedence over the speed limits.
In a case where the the car in front is going slower than the speed limit, it would be good etiquette though to move over.
In the UK it goes lanes 1, 2, 3. You stay in lane 1. Lane 2 and 3 are for passing only.
You will often see members of the lane 2 owners club just cruising along in lane 2 but this effectively closes lane 1 (undertaking is illegal and very unsafe).
Sitting in lane 3 closes the entire motorway.
I agree there is a speed limit. But the law says you cannot just sit in lane 2 or 3 if you are not overtaking someone. They even updated the law recently. If you hog lane 2 or 3 the police can report you and the penalty is 3 points and £100 fine
People who sit in lane 3 at 69mph are breaking the law and likely to cause an accident by forcing people to pass on the wrong side out of frustration (yes illegal but they will do it) and this is why they are over taking lanes, not just cruising lanes.
Never be the reason someone else does something stupid on the road. Always do the safest thing.
-
Often people use those lanes to speed. If a car ahead is overtaking at or within a reasonable range of the speed limit, but not at the speed the speeder wants to travel. The speeder must be patient, they don’t get to dictate what manoeuvres are happening ahead.
-
The argument you present at the end isn’t logical,
… Always do the safest thing.
I can largely agree with this sentiment, but you say before,
People who sit in lane 3 at 69mph are breaking the law and likely to cause an accident by forcing people to pass on the wrong side out of frustration (yes illegal but they will do it)…
If undercutting is the most unsafe thing for the person behind to do in the situation, then as your sentiment captures, the frustrated party undercutting are still in the wrong.
They are in the wrong because, they have failed to ‘always do the safest thing’ in the given situation.
-
Never be the reason someone else does something stupid on the road.
Nice sentiment again, but it implicitly assigns a rigid cause and effect regime to a situation where the ‘frustrated party’ behind has their own agency and likely as much training. There is no necessity that they undercut, it is a choice the party behind makes. The cause does not necessitate that effect, at best it could contribute.
In essence the sentiment shifts the blame from the person causing a potential accident (the undercutter), to the person ahead who, at worst, is causing poor traffic conditions.
Like I said undertaking is bad. No excuse for doing it, except where it is legal. If someone goes under speed limit in lane 3 you can undertake I believe, though I would still be super cautious.
Obviously speeding is illegal, and I’m not suggesting anyone should support do so. But we should let the police deal with it.
Just to clarify, you don’t think it is ok to sit in lane 2 or 3 at the speed limit if there is room to move over ? Not doing so is also illegal in the UK.
While the majority of people stay within the law (+/- 10%) there are enough people behaving badly on the roads that you should always take that into consideration.
This is a great example of the is/ought problem. You can try your best to make the “ought” true, but don’t neglect what reality “is”. On the road that means; assume there is an idiot nearby, and drive in a way that keeps you safe from their shit.
You are correct. If the flow of traffic in lane 1 or 2 is faster than the flow of traffic in lane 2 or 3 then it is okay to pass. Intentionally changing lane temporarily to pass a car on the inside is illegal.
The other poster confused your point.
If someone in lane 3 is going 69 and overtaking someone then there’s no reason to pass them, and probably isn’t safe or legal given there is, by definition, a car on the inside lane already.
-
Paedophilia as a sickness, especially non-offending paedos.
I’d call it a cultural artifact. We used to get married very young. In some cultures the kids are introduced to sex by the grandparents. And of course in our own culture the ideal of sexy beauty is a supermodel who looks like a 13 year old boy. It’s a whirlwind wrapped in a psychosis for sure.
“I’ve asked ChatGPT about xyz” , and “how to use chatGPT for xyz” in my experience gets me downvotes fast.
People are quick to presume you have no ability to fact check anything and that you will be following its advice blindly, (which mind you - you were never asking for in the first place) instead of asking a human, ever ( for example about medical conditions but not limited to that topic). People presume you are trying to eliminate the human factor out of the equation completely and are quick to remind you of your sins, god forbid you ever use a chatbot to test ideas, ask for a summary on a topic so you can expand your research later or get creative with it in any way. If you do, most people don’t like to know.
I think the bigger problem is that each answer it gives basically destroys a forest
To be fair: “For each answer it gives”, nah. You can run a model on your home computer even. It might not be so bad if we just had an established model and asked it questions.
The “forest destroying” is really in training those models.
Of course at this point I guess it’s just semantics, because as long as it gets used, those companies are gonna be non-stop training those stupid models until they’ve created a barren wasteland and there’s nothing left…
So yeah, overall pretty destructive and it sucks…
Training a model takes more power than what? Generating a single poem? Using it to generate an entire 4th grade class’s essays? To answer all questions in Hawaii for 6th months? What is the scale? The break even point for training is far far less than total usage.
Have you ever used one locally? Depending on your hardware it’s anywhere between glacially to a morgue’s AC slow. To the average person on the average computer it is nearly unusable, relative to the instant gratification of the web interface.
That gives you a sense of the resources required to do the task at all, but it doesn’t scale linearly. 2 computers aren’t twice as fast as one. It’s logarithmic. With diminishly returns. In the end, this means one 100 word response uses the equivalent of 3 bottles of water.
How many queries are made per hour? How does that scale over time with increased usage of the same model? More than training a model. A lot more.
Yeah you make a really good point there! I was perhaps thinking too simplistically and scaling from my personal experience with playing around on my home machine.
Although realistically, it seems the situation is pretty bad because freaky-giant-mega-computers are both training models AND answering countless silly queries per second. So at scale it sucks all around.
Minus the terrible fad-device-cycle manufacturing aspect, if they’re really sticking to their guns on pushing this LLM madness, do you think this wave of onboard “Ai chips” will make any impact on lessening natural resource usage at scale?
(Also offtopic but I wonder how much a sweet juicy exploit target these “ai modules” will turn out to be.)
It’s really opaque. We won’t know the environmental impact right away. Part of the larger problem is, while folks like you and I make a sizable impact, it’s nothing compared to enterprise usage at scale. Every website, app, and operating system with an AI button makes it even easier for users to interface with AI leading to more queries. Not only that, those queries and responses are collected and used to further make queries.
Should the usage of AI stay stable, improved hardware would decrease carbon output. We should be cautious coming to that conclusion. What is more likely is that increased efficiency will lead to increased usage. Perhaps at an accelerated rate with the anticipation of even more technological breakthroughs down the line.
All that said, I’m really not a doomer. It’s important we all consider the cost of our choices. The way I see it, we are all going to die eventually. I’m old enough it will probably be from something else.
Israel
Men’s rights
Boys being left behind in school
Men’s rights to do what?
Family court. Prison time. Homeless assistance. Failing education rates for boys. And on and on.
There’s a huge amount of topics in “men’s rights”
R.A.P.E
religion, abortion, politics and economics.
Avoid discussing rape too.
Economics doesn’t seem as big of a thing as the other 3. Anyone who’s nerdy enough to talk economics without making it political could probably have a pretty good discussion. I vote we change it to Elephants. Religion, Abotion, Politics, Elephants, or Rape.
The fact i can tell you using economic theory its a good idea to make people unemployed as the cost of living increases, that rent controls are a really bad idea, and even ignoring profit its probably wise to increase the costs of tickets to shows and events makes me very unpopular
