Ballot access is made very difficult by the duopoly. And, polls are basically fucked by bias.
Many of the best hypothetical solutions are based on votes. But, all of them have prerequisite of RCV.
For a more immediate solution, 5% of the GE POTUS vote puts an organization on every ballot in the next cycle. It’d be much more difficult to rationalize exclusion from debates when such a choice exists for everyone.
I feel like it will get to the point where AI will start writing code that works but nobody can understand or maintain including AI
Already there, and have been for awhile. In my work we often don’t understand how the AI itself works. We independently test for accuracy. Then we begin trusting results without verification. But, at no time do we really understand the logic of how the AI gets from input to output.
If you are able to explain the requirements to an AI so fully that the AI can do it correctly it would have taken shorter time to program by yourself.
This makes sense for a one-time job. But, it doesn’t make sense when there’s a hundred jobs with only minor differences. For example, the AI writes a hundred AI’s. We kill all but the three to five best models.
education about CS/responsible use of technology
The vast majority of what’s been suggested in the OP and comments focuses on the technical: CS and IT. But, no one’s focused on “responsible use of technology”. I’d like to see a course that focused on the morality and ethics of usage.
Examples of possible classroom topics:
Is it moral and ethical to spread disinformation as a means to “good” end? Is it acceptable to spread truth if the consequences are likely “bad”?
Is it moral and ethical to use generative AI to effectively libel/slander a political opponent? Does it the analysis change if used for advertising?
Is it moral and ethical to pirate media? Does it depend on what’s being pirated? Does it depend on why it’s being pirated?
The "problems with such a course:
It’d require prerequisite of basic philosophy/logic and basic CS/IT. It could be a lot of material to cover. Course construction and presentation needs to be focused, rooted in experience, likely a passion project.
The audience may be too young to think in these terms. A little experience goes a long way towards understanding these topics well enough to have a good faith classroom discussion. I don’t intend ageism, in fact the opposite. I think today’s youth are more capable than when I was such an age: Make it known that the course is “hard”. Those that choose it will excel.
They will come when we call.
The chaff can’t perceive the wheat.
All the lukewarm attempts to help, rooted in shallow understanding, reinforced my suicidal ideation. What’s the value of false love from a paid hotline worker one will never speak to again? It’s negative.
Be ready to love the shit out of someone yourself. Share their sorrow. Don’t try to fix it. Just try to understand. It’ll fucking suck. The other person knows it sucks for you. Tell them it sucks and that you’re choosing it.
I saw crypto from home screen to settings. While anecdotal, that made them very difficult to trust.
Qu’ils mangent de la brioche
Communist revolution because capitalism has failed as predicted is the primary and public point of community unification for hexbear. Your assertions are laughable.
You delivered nonsense without even considering semantic. You felt entitled to others figuring it out for you. And, you were rejected due to your lack of effort.
I’ll now reject you for gaslighting me about your comments, which I’ve read, and the follow up strawman.
It’s simply not good enough. I don’t care why. But, I know you’ve nothing to contribute but practice material for identifying logical fallacy.
You’ve forgotten to mention the minority that did not agree and how strongly they believed they were correct. You’ve seemingly not considered that democracy’s best case scenario is mediocrity.
We will not be led by or stagnate upon popularity among the lumpen. Democracy be damned when faced with such a threat.
Predictable responses, now assigning me intent. I’ll no longer disturb your comfortable order. Best of luck, neolib.
Did I fault your content or your presentation of it?
Nice strawman. You just can’t help yourself.
Here’s the vote that approved the granular instance-by-instance approach
And then what happened? It seems like you were present for awhile but perhaps not in the trenches, through the OpSec, and to the end.
What?
Indeed.
Are you describing the consensus building and struggle sessions as “forcing the wisest decision on everyone”?
Q: Why did hexbear brigade the fediverse?
A: Certainly for the lulz. /s
Definitely not a neolib
Language analysis of your post history says differently. If you’re not a neolib troll then perhaps you should stop presenting as such.
Yes.
If I invest effort into figuring it out for myself and demonstrate that effort in the quality of my questions then nearly every teacher will at least match my investment. In the US teachers are so starved for good students that one-on-one education is free, from philosophy professors to diesel mechanics. I don’t even need be past the “nonsense” stage, only recognize my status and ask what pieces of the puzzle I’m missing.
edit: fixed a change from first to third person for clarity
Hexbear was the only lemmy for 4 years, over that time their code base diverged, it took a few months to make federation possible again… a lot of users opposed federation concerns about harassment or just valuing one of the few leftist communities. The end result was slow federation, with users suggesting specific instances to federate with, and instances getting defederated if the admins failed to take adequate action against transphobes/chasers.
Now there’s two of us that are speaking truth.
Half this thread is hexbears and others telling people exactly what they believe about random topics.
Are they? That wouldn’t be thematically consistent with their years of telling others what they’d like to hear for their entertainment. Their culture is selfish in that way.
There was never a consensus on whether HB should be segregated
There was never formal consensus in that leadership repeatedly denied the vote, favoring a granular, instance-by-instance approach.
What are you talking about?
An organized, grassroots movement that employed questionable means to force the wisest decision upon leadership and everyone else.
Hello, low effort neolib troll. Thanks for the opportunity to continue to speak truth.
There’s a cultural similarity to what 4-chan was prior to the LOIC. But, they’re definitely not tankies. Sincere expressions of authoritarian means are soundly defeated and usually result in permabans. The principle and practice is consistent for MAGA, neolibs, and other authoritarians.
You can’t deliver garbage writing to communists and expect positive results. The standard of semantics and nuance are set by socio-economic authors predominantly from the mid-to-late nineteenth century. Prerequisite to even speaking is a comprehensive understanding of at least The Conquest of Bread. One is expected to have the ability to segregate content from presentation and ideology from means of implementation. It’s as if you walked into university dynamics and poorly presented an algebra-based approach to a single body problem.
In certain forums, unless I’m very well-informed about a topic, I’ve learned to shut the fuck up unless asking questions, and to ask them with humility. In communist forums, which always stress education, I consistently receive high quality answers.
US:
A common murderer-for-hire is difficult to hire because they’ll probably take your money and disappear. A muderer-for-hire that won’t get caught is impossible to hire because they don’t advertise to the common person.
If you want the full package then it’ll cost you five to ten years: Commit a somewhat violent crime to avoid being sentenced to minimum security prison. You’ll have lots of time. There’s not much to do except be violent and learn whatever you want from other inmates and books. Choose your friends wisely.