I don't think you can use this datapoint for this purpose. Cops are employing the paranoid strategies already, so there's no way to discern between 'these strategies are needless' and 'these strategies are effective'.
You could probably do a comparison between jurisdictions where police homicides are common and jurisdictions where they aren't common. Assuming that there are cultural factors anyway.
Like sure, areas with higher rates of criminal violence will probably have more police homicides, but it's likely enough that you can pair things up based on rates of criminal violence.
Yeah, call me when Yann incorporates the four humors and the elemental force of fire, from which we draw life. Metal lacks the nature for this purpose.
I work at a non-tech Fortune 500 and this is looking nearly spot-on from here. Nobody on my team touches the code directly anymore as of about 2 months ago. They're rolling it out to the entire software department by June. I can't speak to the economy at large, but this doesn't look like baseless hype to me. My understanding is that Claude Code reached this level late last year, ie. Amodei was just wrong about uptake rates.
The word 'scheme' means that it isn't true if it's only true effectively. If you concede that Amazon didn't deliberately work towards this outcome, you concede that it's unfair to call it a scheme.
It's certainly a stretch to describe that as killing people. You can argue it's a an acceptable stretch, or that it's still very bad even if described more accurately, but it is plainly not what 'killing people' traditionally means
Yes, it is. Anything with a wide userbase that worsens or even just intensifies mood will lead to elevated suicide rates. If your boss picks someone else for the promotion and you kill yourself over it, your boss didn't kill you. If you're attracted to someone and they marry someone else and you respond similarly, same answer. If your instagram friends post pictures of their happy lives and it makes you feel bad, etc.
You can broaden the definition of 'killing people' to include 'elevating their risk of killing themselves', but then you have to shed the intuitions that are the sole purpose of using that kind of language in the first place. It's a rhetorical sleight of hand.
We have decades of research now showing concretely the harmful effects of social media, especially for people under 18. It is not debatable. It directly harms broader society and individuals yet we continue to have incredibly thin regulations that are barely enforced.
Help me out here. This has been happening to me a lot lately and I have to assume it's a failure to communicate on my part. I only intended to dispute that this should be called 'killing people'. I tried to indicate that I still think it's bad even if not described in that way.
Is there something that I said or failed to say that lead you to believe otherwise, or are you intending this reply as an argument that it should be called 'killing people' in a way I'm not understanding?
And here I thought the internet was about the free exchange of ideas and knowledge. And free will was the ability to choose to use social media or not.
I don’t know why you’re getting sarcastic with me. I also imagine you’re aware of the addiction element but if not I can send some studies/research along.
Social media companies have decades of work and billions of dollars of research to pull from. They use every single trick and tool they can to make it an addiction. The dialogue and shared strategies between them and the gambling industry is enough of a red flag on its own IMO.
It’s not a fair fight. Asking someone to just stop using social media can be like telling a gambling addict to just stop gambling. You’re also expecting teenagers to exhibit that self control.
And I’m not even getting into how critical it is to use social media if you run a business. Hell at some companies you’re required to participate in their social media presence. You can’t simply make it go away. You may as well tell people to just stop buying a phone or a computer.
I mean I work in tech. I’m 39. I’ve been on social media my entire life. At one point I was addicted. I cut social media down to 3 hours a week now I’ve taken years off in the past. I’ve also beaten alcohol addiction after the loss of my son. I’ve also quit gaming because I couldn’t balance it. Should we ban gaming? Should we ban marketing? Billboards? I see booze everywhere and yet no one is saying people with alcohol addictions are harmed by these ads.
I understand the psychology of marketing and what these companies do to exploit that.
At the end of the day if it’s about the kids. The parents should be educated at this point.
When I was a “tween” I was building CGI blogs and myspacing before moving from Perl to PHP; in high school you needed a college email address to sign up for Facebook so that didn’t come for until after I graduated high school in 2004.
Sure things have changed but I find if I pause and reflect daily and stay in the moment I don’t ever doom scroll or need social media.
Even now this comment is only being written bc I’m taking a poo.
Sometimes the patient says that the arm they no longer have hurts, or that everything hurts but the opiates you gave them last time did the trick, more opiates please, or that the world is sad and empty and the only way out is offing themself. And sure, you can rightly believe that they're in pain in all three situations, but not in a way that is informative about which side to take on vibecession.
I know we're not supposed to talk about it, but what in the world is happening to this site? Mistaking 'Antifa' for 'the concept of opposing fascism' is not the kind of failure mode I expect here. And this kind of thing has become endemic lately- emotive noise and sarcastic dunks drowning out substance in every thread, especially since the beginning of December. Or am I just imagining this?
Fighting fascist is the primary way to oppose them. The fighting bit often requires violence. That's what it takes, because it involves fighting a group of people that are not a peaceful bunch and have very violent intentions.
Yes, exactly my point. And once you are picking targets and taking violent actions, you can no longer excuse your aim and your violence by saying your heart is in the right place. Antifa has, for many decades, done wrong actions with good intentions. You can oppose them without being fascist.
Hm. Have you actually read that wikipedia page? I don't think it serves to validate your claims.
It does say that the Trump administration and one police department claims that they are like you say. On the same page it also mentions that the Trump administration has been involved on several hoaxes trying to incorrectly portray it.
Most of all the other groups paint it in a positive light.
> [g]iven the historical and current threat that white supremacist and fascist groups pose, it's clear to me that organized, collective self-defense is not only a legitimate response, but lamentably an all-too-necessary response to this threat on too many occasions.
I would not mind being associated with the group portrayed on that page.
The article from Freddie deBoer is from 2021. He writes:
> The association of antifa with violence stems from the fact [in Europe] that these fascists or neofascists would often prowl the streets [...] Though many people would love to pretend that this isn’t the case, we are not in fact living in an America where Proud Boys wander through Chelsea randomly beating up gay people without resistance from the police
I think he would write something very different today. He does mention one case were a journalist was shot paint and mace and was thrown on the group by a group that could have been antifa. Or not.
Third link is from 2017. Black-clad anarchists swarm "anti-hate" rally in California, says the title. But it was an "anti-marxist" and "pro-trump" rally, which was cancelled(?). But people showed up anyway(?). And then:
> officers were told not to actively confront the anarchists
Come on. That reeks of being staged. The people in black were almost certainly proud boys. The wikipedia page mentions their leader employing this exact tactic:
> In posts on Parler, leaders of the Proud Boys had disclosed plans to attend the rally wearing "all black" clothing associated with antifa activists and arrive "incognito" in an apparent effort to shift blame for any violence on antifa
I did this analysis in a bit more than 10 minutes, no LLMs used.
You mention the years a few times- the claim I was asked to cite was in the past tense and I deliberately sought sources from before the current regime. This is your sole criticism of the deBoer article. Antifa was still called Antifa and it was still short for anti-fascist in 2017 and 2021.
Wiki says:
>Some on the political left and some civil rights organizations criticize antifa's willingness to adopt violent tactics, which they describe as counterproductive and dangerous, arguing that these tactics embolden the political right and their allies.
>Both Democratic and Republican politicians have condemned violence from antifa
>CNN describes antifa as "known for causing damage to property during protests."
Among many other similar statements; I think your summary is inadequate.
I can't argue with false flag conspiracy theories, so I'll leave it at that.
If they genocided German citizens, yes! We still argue today about whether Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified; nobody argues they weren't antifascist.
Of course I'm not saying this! There's no way to read what I said and get this out unless you put it in! You're supposed to be charitable here and you are actively doing the opposite.
If you punch John Doe in the face becaune you think he's Hitler; if you torture Hitler's parents just to stick it to him, yes, you are in the wrong.
By physically opposing fascism, I assume you mean they are taking specific practical actions rather than becoming one with the platonic concept of opposition to fascism.
It may seem an obvious or insignificant point, but it is critical here. If they physically oppose fascism by following and filming ICE, I'm very much on board. If they oppose it by molotoving innocent local government buildings, I am against. If both of these actions are the concept of opposing fascism, what does it mean to be against that?
Antifa are belligerants. They undermine protests by having the maturity to die for a cause but not to live for one. One can be against that without being fascist.
So your contention is that people who are following and filming ICE cannot be considered 'antifa' because you have decided that 'antifa' means 'people engaging in bad violence'.
5th place company or better in every chart on that page except 'fastest models' suggests that parent is still right to criticize the 10th place characterization.
They sure are right to criticize but not by this specific evidence: "text is dominating the market share right now and Grok is the #2 model for that in arena rankings"
Grok has the 2nd best text model based on arena rankings (which is a "blind taste test"). The fact that nobody is using it doesn't affect it's score and shouldn't.
>What if someone (could be an individual or even an uncoordinated group) bets millions of dollars on you not doing X, in the hopes of you taking the opposite bet and doing X?
If the market is efficient and aware of the bribery effect, others will bet that you will do X up to the point where the indirect bribe is equal to the cost of you doing X. If you have private knowledge that a bribe would be taken, you probably have the access to do it far cheaper off market (and you can still use crypto).
reply