Naw brohamley, feminists just love having sex. Kinda like Quakers love to drink, environmentalists love pollution, and Orthodox Jews just can't get enough pork.
That s correct. One of the oddest things about this whole matter though is that in all of the stories about the falling birth rate, the focus is very gynocentric.
Which is a little odd - if you don't consider the other half of the equation, you don't get the whole picture.
That's because the women are the ones who actually give birth. They're also the ones who decide whether or not to have a child the vast majority of the time. It's not like women actually need to be in a long-term relationship to get pregnant. Heck, sperm donors mean she doesn't even have to have sex.
And as passive avoidance, it is becoming a problem.
Citation required.
the traditional nerds and otherwise males unattractive to women come to mind.
What, are you 16?
Nerds and "otherwise unattractive males" are quite in demand as "husband material". We are usually paid well, we don't have sufficient social skills to find a mistress, we tend to be far more devoted because we're thrilled that there's a woman who likes us.
Now, it does require sufficient social skills to not drive all woman and most men away as soon as you open your mou.....oh, I see the problem.
OK, but what men will get in return for being chivalrous? What men will get in return for protecting and constantly helping women?... I don't know if you are a man who is virtue signaling in order to get sex or one of those "feminazi"
Relationships are not transaction-based. You do not get a card where you get a blowjob after 10 "nice guy" stamps.
I talked about me. I talked about me who should have been pressured into marriage and the traditional husband role, even if my freedom looked more appealing. Yet, you immediately changed the subject to make it about women. Why?
Because men aren't forced into the roles you claim they are forced into. Men were the ones deciding what those roles are, so men chose the roles they would prefer to take on.
but it doesn't change that you think only about women and completely ignore men. What does that say about you?
Not the parent poster, but it shows I'm not a denizen of r/incel.
We menfolk have it really good. All those traditional gender roles? We never had to obey them. You could go ahead and never get married. You could go ahead and abandon your family. You could go ahead and fuck any woman regardless of your marriage vows.
This feels like oppression to you because you're losing elevated status, not because you're actually oppressed.
Anyway, your idea that women can still have a "partner" is dying. I live in Quebec, where feminism is very strong, and as a result most men are now like me. The synthetic marriage rate (the number of women who will marry at least once before the age of 50) has fallen to 30% for women and 27% for men. Only 30% of women will find a husband, and considering that the divorce rate is about 50%, it means not a lot of women will be able to find a stable partner.
You realize that "partner" does not mean "spouse", right?
Let's go to the numbers: https://www.statcan.gc.ca/tabl... Married + Common Law in Quebec = 47% of the population. Married + Common Law in Ontario = 47% of the population.
My God, look at that massive difference!! Quebec is clearly a place where people can't possibly form long term relationships without being forced into them by society!!!! Or not.
Well, in my case, when one of my clients wants to get things on his own terms, what I do is to tell him to find someone else.
Golly....I wonder why you're having so much trouble with long-term relationships.....it's not like there's a massive warning sign, alarm klaxon and flashing lights around this sentence.
Once again, relationships are not transaction-based.
Cold spots are dark - any heat would cause some detectable radiation.
So a large cold spot would be detectable from the absence of anything detectable. Kinda like the Bootes void: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., but even more void-ish.
So we can be reasonably sure a large cold spot doesn't exist. Obviously small cold spots could exist, but you'd expect things to mix well enough that it would be more than 0.000000001 K.
The simple fact is that even if we tax everyone at 100% and drive the whole budget toward healthcare, there will still not be enough money to provide best available treatment for every known disease.
Literally every other developed nation on the planet accomplishes this without spending 100% of their budget on healthcare. The UK has started having some problems recently, but that's because they've slashed NHS funding in an attempt to privatize it.
he difference between right wing and left wing is that right wing recognizes this as affordability problem, and lets the patients make the choice of "is it worth and can I afford to spend 5 mil dollars to extend my life for 3 months"
I like how you assume everyone has $5M in the bank, or is creditworthy enough to get it. It really demonstrates just how reality-based your thinking is.
Also, Medicare exists. For the vast majority of people, they are not spending that $5M. We already cover them.
Either directly or by having people wait 2 years in queue to see a cardiologist
[Citation Required]
In every other developed nation, you will get to a doctor immediately to treat a life-threatening illness. You may have to wait longer than the US for non-life-threatening major treatment like a hip replacement....but that's on a scale of weeks, instead of "as soon as the OR is free" in the US. And you know what? People can wait for a procedure like that because it's not life-threatening and far more efficient. We don't need a bunch of idle operating rooms just in case a bunch of people want a hip replacement right now.
Now, there is freedom of association in the USA. So if you prefer a collectivist approach to healthcare, you are more than welcome form your own coop, insurance company, charity hospital, or whatever, and get busy with convincing others to join you.
Nope.
There are a patchwork of laws and regulations that actually make it illegal to form my own co-op, insurance company or charity hospital. You have to meet a lot of requirements first, which cost an enormous amount of money. Then you can start being an insurance company....in one state.
But, keep in mind that a national healthcare system with compulsory participation flies in the face of the principles upon which the Republic was founded
Fire departments. Are they Constitutional? It's compulsory participation, and not enumerated in the Federal constitution or any State constitution.
At a minimum for such a thing to be implemented, I think it would require a constitutional amendment
Oh fuck off already. This whole subject is about people working at Google who did not sign up to work on weapons systems for the military leaving their jobs on ethical and moral grounds
Then why change the subject to how upstanding and moral your training systems are?
Also, what do you think they do with that training? Even if you're talking about something as noble as firefighting or medivac rescues, that training is in service of the war machine.
especially considering that the fake-ass garbage they're calling 'AI' these days will just fuck it up anyway and get innocent people killed in a drone strike
Hey look! You jumped again to AI targeting. Not gonna happen. O3 isn't going to hand over it's work to O2.
This sounds entirely like someone working in the arms industry and attempting to justify it for himself.
Please find someone else throwing around large piles of money for similar research so they can be evaluated as an alternative. If you don't want to waste your time, there isn't anyone. Even Google turned to DoD funding.
The government is funding virtually all basic research in the United States now. And the DoD is one of the largest funding entities. If you don't like that reality, then you need to solve it economically and politically.
Companies would have to go back to creating things like Xerox PARC and Bell Labs, and they aren't going to do that as long as we reward them more for being cheap. And DoD vs non-DoD spending is an entirely political issue that we absolutely have the power to fix....but you would have to do a lot more than attack someone on Slashdot to do so.
Or we use DoD funding to advance various technologies. And then we get things like the Internet.
There is nothing benign about making weapons better, more precise, more powerful.
Compare what happened to Dresden in 1945 to Baghdad in 2002.
It means they get used more, there is less reason for restraint
Because we didn't go to war in Korea shortly after WWII....and then again in Vietnam....and then again in Reagan's various adventures....and then again in Iraq....and then again in Afghanistan....and then again in Iraq Mk 2....
If greater precision made people use weapons more often, then that pace would have been accelerating instead of roughly one big war per 10-20 years.
Why would you ever talk to the opposition anymore then. It's all about power and destroying all the opposition.
Because you can't actually destroy them? See: North Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and the "war on terror" in general.
And in this case it's power for Trump and psychos like Bolton who are just itching to use all that power.
Because those same insane people using carpet bombing would be better, right? They have the political will to slaughter no matter what. Precision is not at all required.
Finally, the technology being discussed is not at all about precision. It's about computers reducing human workload. It's not like we are not analyzing the video now. We're just having humans do it.
At least with a human making a mistake, there's someone to hold responsible
Have you been paying attention to events during the last 3 decades?
Also, you still are making the mistaken assumption that it's the AI deciding to target something. The AI here just filters the large volume of data so that the humans have less to look through, and thus can do better analysis. This mirrors what happens with current intelligence analysis, where the people who say "this guy is doing ___" are not the people who decide to do anything about it. There's zero reason to believe that structure will change for a long time because the military likes splitting this responsibility - J2 (intelligence) is not the same people as J3 (operations) and that split goes back quite a bit.
..oh, and by the way: It's inevitable that the so-called 'AI' (inaptly named; is really not much more than 'pseudo-intelligence' at best) will make mistakes, and those mistakes will likely mean non-combatants becoming collateral damage
And that never happens with humans looking at the videos because..........?
And keep in mind, the humans are 18-25ish, have minimal training, and have to plow through many hours of recordings all day, every day. An "AI" reducing their workload by identifying what's "interesting" would probably reduce collateral damage.
Our own military has enough people with advanced degrees that actual military members can create next-generation technology.
Nope.
One of the requirements of military service is "up or out". You either need to earn a promotion and move to a different station, or you're "asked" to retire. And you don't get promoted in-place, you get a new assignment with a higher rank.
Those officers with advanced degrees do not get to work on the same program for 10 years...and usually not even 5 years. It's also not uncommon for officers to "temporarily" deploy in support of one of our many lovely wars. This constant churn of the development team would ensure that the new technology can't be developed.
you need to **completely disable** email encryption
And there's where your reading comprehension failed.
The recommendation is to disable automatic email decryption. Because a lot of email clients will automatically decrypt the email and then happily run the "active content" in that email (aka hit an external server to download images or other HTML-email-fun).
So go ahead an send emails encrypted. And go ahead and decrypt your emails...manually so that you're doing it in a place that will not automatically run the HTML.
Hold on a second. All I said was that you should know what the company's fiscal year is and how they refer to it.
No, you went on a rant implying that you needed to produce a novel to describe every argument to a function/procedure where you document all of the company's business practices in the parameters to a function.
This is obviously insane and not at all what I'm talking about. But you totally got all the Internet points for it.
Also, how does documenting the company's fiscal year in the code tell me if I should send 2018 or 18 to your procedure? Believe it or not, you can find developers who think "I'll save a byte by making it two digits!"
There's not much practical difference between "locking pins engaged by a hunk of metal" and "locking pins engaged by an electric motor". There's still a physical locking mechanism.
Electrically-actuated is actually becoming common on ICE vehicles. The car can detect the circuit is broken or the motor is dead. It can't detect that a physical actuator has broken.
I'm glad my non-electric car has a real park setting on the transmission. One where there is a physical cable attached to the selector that engages a pawl to lock the transmission.
Electric cars have those too. It's required by federal safety standards no matter the propulsion method.
And people "thought the car was in park" lots of times in ICE vehicles.
Google is not the customer. Google is not whom they're providing services for. Google is collecting information without consent. This is easy to understand.
That would be relevant if Mike had an expectation of privacy. You still have to establish that he does have such an expectation.
Christ you're fucking dense. IT IS ABOUT GOOGLE NOT ABOUT YOU. You're a fucking retard, kill yourself.
So....took a minute, couldn't figure out what was different, and jumped on yelling about Google being evil. I mean, you so could have gone with two-party consent or some other thing that is actually a potential issue. Instead, you just flailed about. Shame.
Ok, let's try using round numbers so that the scale gets across to you.
Hybrid, electric and high-efficiency ICE vehicles are costing the highway fund tens of millions of dollars. The highway fund has been underfunded by about $20-50 billion per year, for decades.
A $10 million reduction is a smaller problem than a $50 billion reduction.
Focusing on fixing the $10 million is not all that helpful, even when that reduction is going to grow in the future...to a number that is still smaller than the underfunding caused by the low tax rate.
In your massive over-reaction, you left out whether or not it has to be an integer, whether it is signed, and the size of the integer.
If by the time you're modifying or looking at my code you don't know what the corporation calls their fiscal year, then you have no business in that code to begin with.
God I hate having to come by and fix code from developers with this attitude after they've fled the company. But at least it pays well.
Because someone with the excess spending money to blow on a Duplex making appointments for them is definitely not what a restaurant or other business wants as a customer!!
Slashdot Mirror
So according to you, non-feminist women are incapable of saying no to sex where only the superior 3rd wave feminists can???
Does your wife help construct your strawmen, or is that something you do all on your own?
Naw brohamley, feminists just love having sex. Kinda like Quakers love to drink, environmentalists love pollution, and Orthodox Jews just can't get enough pork.
Feminists love having sex. Just not with you.
That s correct. One of the oddest things about this whole matter though is that in all of the stories about the falling birth rate, the focus is very gynocentric.
Which is a little odd - if you don't consider the other half of the equation, you don't get the whole picture.
That's because the women are the ones who actually give birth. They're also the ones who decide whether or not to have a child the vast majority of the time. It's not like women actually need to be in a long-term relationship to get pregnant. Heck, sperm donors mean she doesn't even have to have sex.
And as passive avoidance, it is becoming a problem.
Citation required.
the traditional nerds and otherwise males unattractive to women come to mind.
What, are you 16?
Nerds and "otherwise unattractive males" are quite in demand as "husband material". We are usually paid well, we don't have sufficient social skills to find a mistress, we tend to be far more devoted because we're thrilled that there's a woman who likes us.
Now, it does require sufficient social skills to not drive all woman and most men away as soon as you open your mou.....oh, I see the problem.
How do you know "cohabitation rate in Quebec is very high"? I was never able to find any statistics on this
Really? You must not have looked hard.
https://www.statcan.gc.ca/tabl...
OK, but what men will get in return for being chivalrous? What men will get in return for protecting and constantly helping women? ...
I don't know if you are a man who is virtue signaling in order to get sex or one of those "feminazi"
Relationships are not transaction-based. You do not get a card where you get a blowjob after 10 "nice guy" stamps.
I talked about me. I talked about me who should have been pressured into marriage and the traditional husband role, even if my freedom looked more appealing. Yet, you immediately changed the subject to make it about women. Why?
Because men aren't forced into the roles you claim they are forced into. Men were the ones deciding what those roles are, so men chose the roles they would prefer to take on.
but it doesn't change that you think only about women and completely ignore men. What does that say about you?
Not the parent poster, but it shows I'm not a denizen of r/incel.
We menfolk have it really good. All those traditional gender roles? We never had to obey them. You could go ahead and never get married. You could go ahead and abandon your family. You could go ahead and fuck any woman regardless of your marriage vows.
This feels like oppression to you because you're losing elevated status, not because you're actually oppressed.
Anyway, your idea that women can still have a "partner" is dying. I live in Quebec, where feminism is very strong, and as a result most men are now like me. The synthetic marriage rate (the number of women who will marry at least once before the age of 50) has fallen to 30% for women and 27% for men. Only 30% of women will find a husband, and considering that the divorce rate is about 50%, it means not a lot of women will be able to find a stable partner.
You realize that "partner" does not mean "spouse", right?
Let's go to the numbers: https://www.statcan.gc.ca/tabl...
Married + Common Law in Quebec = 47% of the population.
Married + Common Law in Ontario = 47% of the population.
My God, look at that massive difference!! Quebec is clearly a place where people can't possibly form long term relationships without being forced into them by society!!!! Or not.
Well, in my case, when one of my clients wants to get things on his own terms, what I do is to tell him to find someone else.
Golly....I wonder why you're having so much trouble with long-term relationships.....it's not like there's a massive warning sign, alarm klaxon and flashing lights around this sentence.
Once again, relationships are not transaction-based.
Cold spots are dark - any heat would cause some detectable radiation.
So a large cold spot would be detectable from the absence of anything detectable. Kinda like the Bootes void: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., but even more void-ish.
So we can be reasonably sure a large cold spot doesn't exist. Obviously small cold spots could exist, but you'd expect things to mix well enough that it would be more than 0.000000001 K.
But if I disable HTML email, how will I send every message in blinking, 24-point Comic Sans?
The simple fact is that even if we tax everyone at 100% and drive the whole budget toward healthcare, there will still not be enough money to provide best available treatment for every known disease.
Literally every other developed nation on the planet accomplishes this without spending 100% of their budget on healthcare. The UK has started having some problems recently, but that's because they've slashed NHS funding in an attempt to privatize it.
he difference between right wing and left wing is that right wing recognizes this as affordability problem, and lets the patients make the choice of "is it worth and can I afford to spend 5 mil dollars to extend my life for 3 months"
I like how you assume everyone has $5M in the bank, or is creditworthy enough to get it. It really demonstrates just how reality-based your thinking is.
Also, Medicare exists. For the vast majority of people, they are not spending that $5M. We already cover them.
Either directly or by having people wait 2 years in queue to see a cardiologist
[Citation Required]
In every other developed nation, you will get to a doctor immediately to treat a life-threatening illness. You may have to wait longer than the US for non-life-threatening major treatment like a hip replacement....but that's on a scale of weeks, instead of "as soon as the OR is free" in the US. And you know what? People can wait for a procedure like that because it's not life-threatening and far more efficient. We don't need a bunch of idle operating rooms just in case a bunch of people want a hip replacement right now.
Now, there is freedom of association in the USA. So if you prefer a collectivist approach to healthcare, you are more than welcome form your own coop, insurance company, charity hospital, or whatever, and get busy with convincing others to join you.
Nope.
There are a patchwork of laws and regulations that actually make it illegal to form my own co-op, insurance company or charity hospital. You have to meet a lot of requirements first, which cost an enormous amount of money. Then you can start being an insurance company....in one state.
But, keep in mind that a national healthcare system with compulsory participation flies in the face of the principles upon which the Republic was founded
Fire departments. Are they Constitutional? It's compulsory participation, and not enumerated in the Federal constitution or any State constitution.
At a minimum for such a thing to be implemented, I think it would require a constitutional amendment
Because Medicare does not already exist.
Oh fuck off already. This whole subject is about people working at Google who did not sign up to work on weapons systems for the military leaving their jobs on ethical and moral grounds
Then why change the subject to how upstanding and moral your training systems are?
Also, what do you think they do with that training? Even if you're talking about something as noble as firefighting or medivac rescues, that training is in service of the war machine.
especially considering that the fake-ass garbage they're calling 'AI' these days will just fuck it up anyway and get innocent people killed in a drone strike
Hey look! You jumped again to AI targeting. Not gonna happen. O3 isn't going to hand over it's work to O2.
This sounds entirely like someone working in the arms industry and attempting to justify it for himself.
Please find someone else throwing around large piles of money for similar research so they can be evaluated as an alternative. If you don't want to waste your time, there isn't anyone. Even Google turned to DoD funding.
The government is funding virtually all basic research in the United States now. And the DoD is one of the largest funding entities. If you don't like that reality, then you need to solve it economically and politically.
Companies would have to go back to creating things like Xerox PARC and Bell Labs, and they aren't going to do that as long as we reward them more for being cheap. And DoD vs non-DoD spending is an entirely political issue that we absolutely have the power to fix....but you would have to do a lot more than attack someone on Slashdot to do so.
Or we use DoD funding to advance various technologies. And then we get things like the Internet.
There is nothing benign about making weapons better, more precise, more powerful.
Compare what happened to Dresden in 1945 to Baghdad in 2002.
It means they get used more, there is less reason for restraint
Because we didn't go to war in Korea shortly after WWII....and then again in Vietnam....and then again in Reagan's various adventures....and then again in Iraq....and then again in Afghanistan....and then again in Iraq Mk 2....
If greater precision made people use weapons more often, then that pace would have been accelerating instead of roughly one big war per 10-20 years.
Why would you ever talk to the opposition anymore then. It's all about power and destroying all the opposition.
Because you can't actually destroy them? See: North Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and the "war on terror" in general.
And in this case it's power for Trump and psychos like Bolton who are just itching to use all that power.
Because those same insane people using carpet bombing would be better, right? They have the political will to slaughter no matter what. Precision is not at all required.
Finally, the technology being discussed is not at all about precision. It's about computers reducing human workload. It's not like we are not analyzing the video now. We're just having humans do it.
At least with a human making a mistake, there's someone to hold responsible
Have you been paying attention to events during the last 3 decades?
Also, you still are making the mistaken assumption that it's the AI deciding to target something. The AI here just filters the large volume of data so that the humans have less to look through, and thus can do better analysis. This mirrors what happens with current intelligence analysis, where the people who say "this guy is doing ___" are not the people who decide to do anything about it. There's zero reason to believe that structure will change for a long time because the military likes splitting this responsibility - J2 (intelligence) is not the same people as J3 (operations) and that split goes back quite a bit.
..oh, and by the way: It's inevitable that the so-called 'AI' (inaptly named; is really not much more than 'pseudo-intelligence' at best) will make mistakes, and those mistakes will likely mean non-combatants becoming collateral damage
And that never happens with humans looking at the videos because..........?
And keep in mind, the humans are 18-25ish, have minimal training, and have to plow through many hours of recordings all day, every day. An "AI" reducing their workload by identifying what's "interesting" would probably reduce collateral damage.
Our own military has enough people with advanced degrees that actual military members can create next-generation technology.
Nope.
One of the requirements of military service is "up or out". You either need to earn a promotion and move to a different station, or you're "asked" to retire. And you don't get promoted in-place, you get a new assignment with a higher rank.
Those officers with advanced degrees do not get to work on the same program for 10 years...and usually not even 5 years. It's also not uncommon for officers to "temporarily" deploy in support of one of our many lovely wars. This constant churn of the development team would ensure that the new technology can't be developed.
They suggest completely disabling or *uninstalling* tools that automatically decrypt PGP messages
Hey look! It's exactly what I said.
Once again, the advice is not to stop using PGP or S/MIME. It's to not automatically decrypt messages because of HTML email.
you need to **completely disable** email encryption
And there's where your reading comprehension failed.
The recommendation is to disable automatic email decryption. Because a lot of email clients will automatically decrypt the email and then happily run the "active content" in that email (aka hit an external server to download images or other HTML-email-fun).
So go ahead an send emails encrypted. And go ahead and decrypt your emails...manually so that you're doing it in a place that will not automatically run the HTML.
Except you were worried about an electrical failure, not a software failure. But the goalposts do look nice in their new location.
Hold on a second. All I said was that you should know what the company's fiscal year is and how they refer to it.
No, you went on a rant implying that you needed to produce a novel to describe every argument to a function/procedure where you document all of the company's business practices in the parameters to a function.
This is obviously insane and not at all what I'm talking about. But you totally got all the Internet points for it.
Also, how does documenting the company's fiscal year in the code tell me if I should send 2018 or 18 to your procedure? Believe it or not, you can find developers who think "I'll save a byte by making it two digits!"
Electrically, not electronically.
There's not much practical difference between "locking pins engaged by a hunk of metal" and "locking pins engaged by an electric motor". There's still a physical locking mechanism.
Electrically-actuated is actually becoming common on ICE vehicles. The car can detect the circuit is broken or the motor is dead. It can't detect that a physical actuator has broken.
So, planning to never get on an airplane ever again?
I'm glad my non-electric car has a real park setting on the transmission. One where there is a physical cable attached to the selector that engages a pawl to lock the transmission.
Electric cars have those too. It's required by federal safety standards no matter the propulsion method.
And people "thought the car was in park" lots of times in ICE vehicles.
Google is not the customer. Google is not whom they're providing services for. Google is collecting information without consent. This is easy to understand.
That would be relevant if Mike had an expectation of privacy. You still have to establish that he does have such an expectation.
Christ you're fucking dense. IT IS ABOUT GOOGLE NOT ABOUT YOU. You're a fucking retard, kill yourself.
So....took a minute, couldn't figure out what was different, and jumped on yelling about Google being evil. I mean, you so could have gone with two-party consent or some other thing that is actually a potential issue. Instead, you just flailed about. Shame.
Ok, let's try using round numbers so that the scale gets across to you.
Hybrid, electric and high-efficiency ICE vehicles are costing the highway fund tens of millions of dollars.
The highway fund has been underfunded by about $20-50 billion per year, for decades.
A $10 million reduction is a smaller problem than a $50 billion reduction.
Focusing on fixing the $10 million is not all that helpful, even when that reduction is going to grow in the future...to a number that is still smaller than the underfunding caused by the low tax rate.
In your massive over-reaction, you left out whether or not it has to be an integer, whether it is signed, and the size of the integer.
If by the time you're modifying or looking at my code you don't know what the corporation calls their fiscal year, then you have no business in that code to begin with.
God I hate having to come by and fix code from developers with this attitude after they've fled the company. But at least it pays well.
Because someone with the excess spending money to blow on a Duplex making appointments for them is definitely not what a restaurant or other business wants as a customer!!