If you see an oppressed people protesting against their opression, and your first instinct is to lecture them on the optics of their protest, you’re not really an ally. You’re just using “optics” as an excuse to not do anything to help out but still think of yourself as a good person. I don’t think anyone falls for it.

You’re really giving off “you can’t tell me what to do” vibes on par with angsty teenagers and black conservatives. But good on you for pirating.

I’ll be the first to admit that Zionists are modern day Nazis, and they’re not welcome in my house. But my phone keyboard autocorrects them to capitalized versions, no idea why. Turned it off now I can write: I’m glad the people convicted in the Nuremberg trials got executed, because they were nazis. I consider zionists the modern day equivalent of nazis. Not sure if this is worth the hassle of not having autocorrect.

Hey, you can’t just go around posting stupid shit like this on the internet. It’s really embarrassing.

Exactly! So it doesn’t make sense to have this whole detailed prediction which resembles nothing that’s ever happened before. That’s all I’m saying.

So I don’t really see how you go from seeing Israel kill 10 passengers to your 6 point prediction. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but considering we’re dealing with the modern day equivalent of nazis who seem to enjoy support from most western governments, I find more grim scenarios equally likely.

I’m not sure what you’re basing your predictions on. Have you studied what they’ve done to similar vessels in the past? I know of only two, the raid in 2010, where they killed 9 people, and the the one earlier this year, where they shot at the ship with two drones. That’s fairly limited, but quite a far cry from your predictions.

I really don’t understand the point you’re trying to make here. Are you trying to imply he was’t complicit in the genocide? His administration sent billions (with a b!) in military aid to Israel, as they were committing a genocide.

I’m glad I had the opportunity to have this conversation with you, you seem like an intellectual powerhouse.

I remember, but pragmatism wins over factual correctness sometimes. If you’re trying to convince someone that American imperialism is bad, and they get a whiff of what they might misconstrue as being pro North Korean, they dismiss what you’re saying outright.

I also didn’t mention Indonesia, Timor, Guatemala, Chile, Cuba, and so and and so forth. And that’s not because I don’t think America is responsible for truly gut wrenching things there (I think Guatemala is especially egregious), but because people aren’t as familiar with these as they are with the Vietnam War and the war on terror. And the latter two have the added benefit that it’s generally agreed upon by liberals (after the fact, of course, never during) that they were a bad thing.

What a well researched take! Good job, buddy!

Exactly! Goes for other conditions as well. One symptom of having a broken arm is sucking at tennis. I suck at tennis, so in a way, my arm is a little broken. And I can’t see what’s behind me, so I’m essentially 50% blind.

There’s a Wikipedia page called NATO enlargement. You can also Google the Biden quote and see what he’s referring to.

It is important to add that even though the US has committed atrocities, for decades, from Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos through Iraq, Afghanistan, and Gaza; illegal invasion, torture, genocide, war crimes; nothing meaningful ever came from it. There has never been Nuremberg trial equivalent for the United States, and there never will be. Every single president since Eisenhower, every single one, no exceptions, has been a war criminal by the standards of the Nuremberg trials and the Tokyo tribunal, and not one of them ever spent even a day in court for it.

There are no consequences for war crimes committed by Americans. None. Aside from 9/11, but the ones who died, the ones who suffered, were not the ones responsible for the atrocities committed by the US. So sure, “just following orders” isn’t a valid defense, but you won’t need one anyway.

One aspect that I’m missing here is the fact that it’s a vicious cycle as well. The feeling bad makes it harder to start, which in turn makes you feel worse, which in turn makes it harder ro start, and so on.

Paraphrasing, but: “testing can only show presence of bugs, not their absence”

It’s kind of indirectly related, but adding a query parameter udm=14 to the url of your Google searches removes the AI summary at the top, and there are plugins for Firefox that do this for you. My hopes for this WM project are that similar plugins will be possible for Wikipedia.

The annoying thing about these summaries is that even for someone who cares about the truth, and gathering actual information, rather than the fancy autocomplete word salad that LLMs generate, it is easy to “fall for it” and end up reading the LLM summary. Usually I catch myself, but I often end up wasting some time reading the summary. Recently the non-information was so egregiously wrong (it called a certain city in Israel non-apartheid), that I ended up installing the udm 14 plugin.

In general, I think the only use cases for fancy autocomplete are where you have a way to verify the answer. For example, if you need to write an email and can’t quite find the words, if an LLM generates something, you will be able to tell whether it conveys what you’re trying to say by reading it. Or in case of writing code, if you’ve written a bunch of tests beforehand expressing what the code needs to do, you can run those on the code the LLM generates and see if it works (if there’s a Dijkstra quote that comes to your mind reading this: high five, I’m thinking the same thing).

I think it can be argued that Wikipedia articles satisfy this criterion. All you need to do to verify the summary is read the article. Will people do this? I can only speak for myself, and I know that, despite my best intentions, sometimes I won’t. If that’s anything to go by, I think these summaries will make the world a worse place.

Renowned tankie Joseph Robinette Biden (and other foreign policy experts) was warning already back in 97 that NATO expansion would lead to a violent Russian response. That’s well before he went senile and was elected president. So maybe the third row of the picture should move to the top.

I love how, for everyone, media literacy seemingly goes straight out the window the moment North Korea is mentioned. I remember a few years back every mainstream media outlet reporting that sarcasm was banned in NK, and that everyone had to get the same haircut as Kim Jong Un. Journalism at its finest.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Corrie

^ here’s a similar case from a couple decades ago. Don’t underestimate the depths we can sink (and have already sunk) to.