- 0 Posts
- 35 Comments
That’s not really how it works, the census bureau is extremely thorough - they send people into encampments regularly, work with homeless charities of all kinds, etc. These counts are estimates unless it’s a federal census year (when they absolutely do count every individual person that they possibly can), but they’re not going to be wildly inaccurate.
The much bigger issue is that these numbers appear to be limited to city limits or greater city area, and that’s where the discrepancy is gonna show up. Most homeless people dont live in cities, and camps are often established on conveniently unincorporated land so they dont have to be counted. Bureaucratic bastardry at its finest.
Its basically a template generator, which is really helpful when you’re generating boilerplate. It doesn’t save me much if any time to refactor/fill in that template, but it does save some mental fatigue that I can then spend on much more interesting problems.
It’s a niche tool, but occasionally quite handy. Without leaps forward technically though, it’s never going to become more than that.
You’re doubling down on the most implausible details, even the ones I fudged in your favor (wpm), and that’s just silly. If that’s truly what a stream of consciousness looks like from you, and if microsoft word really is (despite all of human history serving as a counter example) helpful to you (I loathe that software more than words can convey), then you truly are the Michael Phelps of internet commenting, and I suppose I commend you for that.
Have a good day, and I mean that sincerely, because this is a really stupid hill for me to be trying this hard to die on, and you seem nice.
I should have clarified - the practice by which declaring “godwin’s law” would call for an end to a discussion, because it had clearly devolved beyond the point that there was anything worthwhile to continue to extract from it, was explicitly excepted from applying to discussions of fascism, where the comparison was (indeed) frequently apt
If advanced degrees automatically make you a good writer, I think everyone I work with (and myself) have been doing it wrong this whole time.
Listen, maybe I’m wrong here. But I don’t believe you because you penned that comment eight minutes after you wrote another 4 paragraph reply, with a very similar word count, which you wrote in at most eleven minutes. And I’m pretty impressed with your consistent 74wpm typing speed on a laptop (that’s assuming no time to correct mistakes), which is pretty phenomenal. I’m more impressed with the lemmy.world admins for improving the time new comments take to propagate, since as recently as last week it was taking a reliable 4 minutes for them to register across the desktop interface. But hey, I might be wrong, I can’t prove this. You might really be that impressively skilled a wordsmith.
I’m curious what definition they were using for what constitutes ‘ultra-processed’. I’ve been having a really hard time narrowing down what an ultra processed food actually is, but this isn’t to take away from the study. Some researchers class them as anything with a ‘non-EU GRAS’ in it, some define it by number of listed ingredients or processing steps, some of them use a definition so strict that even butter or pasteurized milk counts. I think its really important that were finally seeing what the health effects of our hyperprocessed diets are having on us, but I just wish that there was a broadly accepted definition so I didn’t have to look up the source study every single time to find out what they’re talking about.
I’m going to point out that you started this conversation, but I’m really not trying to be churlish by doing so. I just truly think you’ve thrown an assumption of bad faith onto me, and have approached this whole interaction from that perspective. And while it’s easy to characterize someone on the internet as attention seeking, consider that I only have something to gain by having a civil conversation with you.
Again, why? I’ve even hilighted where I’ve been wrong or unfair to you in my comments, repeatedly, but you continue to attack someone that has been nothing but, at worst, mildly self indulgent in one reply. But you’re openly hostile, even when I’m agreeing with you. I doubt you’re so jaded you can’t even claim victory, but I think you’ve been so blinded by your hatred that you can’t even recognize capitulation or engage with an attempt to start a constructive dialog. So why do you comment on a public forum? What’s the root of why you despise me so much?
There it is.
Why, though? I’m not actually resentful here - in my experience, I doubt that we wouldn’t get along extremely well in person. Hell, judging by your username its very possible we’ve met (or are related, though that’s really not a flattering thing for me to put on you…). Your doubling down on a position you hold on an internet forum is pretty common; honestly I’ve just been curious how long it would be before you hit the point that you dispense with pretense and we can actually talk.
Escalating this into a vitriolic spewing of personal attacks and rhetoric is par for the metaphorical course online, but I’d like to harken back to the original issue, before it started getting personal, and point out that this started over my insistence that the specific wording of a NYT article headline isn’t as bad as the others. I don’t even disagree that they’re enabling a genocide or that they’re a bunch of ratfucking cop fellating soulless corporate shills - I just think you misunderstood the specific wording in the headline.
The offer of a class audit is sincere, as well. I doubt you’d actually need a media literacy class, but it’s a requirement I’m frequently challenged and decried for requiring before getting into my computer science courses. But if you’re interested, we have damn good forestry, polysci, marine bio and mathematics courses I’d happily hook you up with. Not even in an editorial or sarcastic way, you just seem intellegent and motivated and people like that can always benefit from an influx of information they have a competent understanding of.
Dear sweet jesus you did it again? Bud I’m not reading that. So that was lie, I’m reading it in goofy voices to a room full of people.
Seriously, have a drink, maybe introspect with some friends, grow as a person. Please.
eeeeeeeedit: Are you okay? No, seriously, with all my heart, are you safe? This isn’t coherent.
e^7dit 2:
this you
Yes.
edit 3: Please take a media literacy class. This is absurd. There’s no way to engage with you, you cannot tell the difference between when I am insulting you and when I am insulting myself (most/all of the time). You cannot accept any form of criticism. This isn’t even a debate, this is just you denying everything, including repeatedly denying my points which are my own self criticism as if they’re attacks on you. You’re so hungry for validation through conflict, and so deluded about your own intellect, that you cannot even pick up on when your own longwinded comment reiterates the point you claim to refute. This hurts to read. I had to stop mocking you halfway through on request, because everyone I’m here with (including a media literacy professor who’s class I will happily sign you in to audit, real offer) described it as “punching down”, which I apologize for. You’re not deserving of my scorn, you’re deserving of my pity and charity.
(also incorporating emoji responses is a source of scorn even on twitter, I mean dude, just… have some self respect…)
Clearly I’m not the one failing to understand anything
Pretty ironic that you would accuse me of constructing a strawman in the same sentence wherein you just constructed one yourself, however hypothetical you might have dressed it up.
Yes, that was me discrediting my own argument with self deprecating humor, a common literary device used to highlight the doubt I have in my own outlandish claim and imply that a less hyperbolic take is probably correct. Look, I’m going to be honest here: a huge point by point breakdown is the #1 sign of someone not arguing in good faith - it’s basically just a Gish-gallop. I read through everything, but you did nothing to engage with the substance of my comment, you just went through and presented opinions derived from anecdotally lived experience as though they are founded and incontrovertible fact.
My opinion, while clear to anyone paying attention, has nothing to do with the fact that including the official IDF version of events in the headline shows clear bias.
It stands that the NYT, of all those headlines, is the only one that doesn’t openly bias themselves towards israel by directly quoting the IDF
The simple truth is that, due I suspect to unfamiliarity, you do not understand the usage of passive voice or quotation in journalism. You keep demonstrating that, in your vigor to present your own perspective as though it’s somehow anathema to my point and will ward off understanding or introspection with the billowing fumes of vacuous crap, you are more eager to fight the good fight than you are to put in the effort to affect a change in yourself or another. To clarify: Having a conversation with you is pointless, and I am quite sure you’re aware of that. You are not attempting to influence me, you’re just attempting to rebut me and any other poster that presents a point counter to the one you hold, and that is tedious.
And yes, I am aware that my words aren’t going to sway you here, doubtlessly doing nothing but to drive you further into the defensive enclave we all retreat to when the Specter of Error looms nigh over our opinions, so perhaps presenting your own words in a new light will get through to you:
I don’t think it works that way
It does.
… Now just how in hell is this a constructive way of responding to someone?
You’re blaming them for malice in what should be fairly attributed to the stupidity and laziness of the general population, though. If you seriously think they should be writing their headlines with the idea of summarizing the Lebanon/Israel situation in one sentence, you’re either an absolutely incredible writier, not their target audience or a straw man made up to illustrate my disagreement with your point.
Including a reference to the statements made by israel in the headline of an article about what israel has said is not unreasonable, regardless of your personal opinion about how that might reflect their bias. It stands that the NYT, of all those headlines, is the only one that doesn’t openly bias themselves towards israel by directly quoting the IDF, and even reflects reasonable skepticism on the statements made by the IDF. If you don’t understand that, it’s not really their fault.
I’m not sure if you’ve genuinely misunderstood me, or if you are commenting to pick a fight. Assuming good faith: Casting is not a vague term, although you are correct that it does not imply they are quoting the IDF (who they are not quoting here. Yes, you can use the same words as someone you’re referring to without quoting them). It’s meaning is quite explicit in this context. That people may not understand is more the fault of the dire state of literacy in this country than it is of the person who wrote this fairly reasonable headline. I would prefer the headline be more critical, but it disappointingly isnt. That is my issue with it.
IDK, NYT has it’s issues but I don’t see anything wrong with their headline on this. They’re pretty explicit (possibly even skeptical given the other coverage of this…) that that’s what israel is calling these strikes. What else should they have said?
Oh wait hang on, “Israel assures west that IDF are ‘working closely’ with amrrican appointed DEI council to ensure no demographic group is unfairly left out of genocidal campaign”. They probably could have gone with that. Fucking hell, the only thing that makes my blood boil more than this limpwristed edit: wrist slap-y journalistic coverage is the literal cauldron of blood the IDF keeps scooting out of frame every time biden facetimes them…
Yikes. Well. I’ll be over here, conspiring with the other NASA lizard people on how best to deceive you by politely answering questions on a site where maaaaybe 20 total people will actually read it. Good luck getting your head around it, there’s lots of papers out there that might help (well, assuming I’m not lying to you about those, too).
Ah, to clarify: Model Collapse is still an issue - one for which mitigation techniques are already being developed and applied, and have been for a while. While yes currently LLM content is harder to train against, there’s no reason that must always hold true - this paper actually touches on that weird aspect! Right now, we have to be careful to design with model collapse in mind and work to mitigate it manually, but as the technology improves it’s theorized that we’ll hit a point at which models coalesce towards stability, not collapse, even when fed training data that was generated by an LLM. I’ve seen the concept called Generative Bootstrapping or the Bootstrap Ladder (it’s a new enough concept that we haven’t all agreed on a name for it yet. we can only hope someone comes up with something better because wow the current ones suck…). We’re even seeing some models that are starting to do this coalesce-towards-stability thing, though only in some extremely niche applications. Only time will tell if all models are able to do this stable-coalescing or if it’s only possible in some cases.
My original point though was just that this headline is fairly sensationalist, and that people shouldn’t take too much hope from this collapse because we’re both aware of it, and are working to mitigate it (exactly like the paper itself cautions us to do)
Wow, this is a peak bad science reporting headline. I hate to be the one to break the news but no, this is deeply misleading. We all want AI to hit it’s downfall, but these issues with recursive training data or training on small datasets have been near enough solved for 5+ years now. The nature paper is interesting because it explains the modality of how specific kinds of recursion impact broadly across model types, this doesn’t mean AI is going to crawl back into pandoras box. The opposite, in fact, since this will let us design even more robust systems.
Honestly, I was just objecting to the use of “AI”. We’ve had both fire and forget and loitering munitions for decades now, neither of which use ML. Will it happen? Sure. For now, ML/AI is too unreliable to be trusted in a deployed direct attack platform, and we dont have computing hardware powerful enough to run ML models that we can jam in a missile.
(Though yeah we run tons of models against drone data feeds, none of those are done onboard…)
Not sure what your point is?