You know that repeating what you’re being told verbatim isn’t an argument, right? I have a hunch you’re not really clear on the meaning of the word “substance”… Parroting concepts defined in books, without the actual substance from the book, or without your own interpretation, is about as useful as a page number without a title…

So far, aside from vague conceptual buzzwords, you have contributed nothing else than “I know you are, but what am I?”.

So, again, let’s cut short, this ain’t Mario, I don’t have several lives to try again. Thanks.

I only downvoted you because I very honestly find your rhetoric dangerously wrong.

I have nothing personal against you, but you unfortunately answered nothing of substance, so I will elect to agree to disagree, and stop wasting each other’s time. 🙂

deleted by creator

There are 2781 billionaires. That’s it. 2781. Saying they are a subset of the bourgeoisie is like saying that saying that a blade of grass is a subset of a forest.

Technically, one could argue that a single molecule in a forest is a subset of the forest, but by any rational standard, a subset of something needs to exhibit similar properties. It needs to be relatable.

And compared to billionaires, the bourgeoisie isn’t different from any of us. They are pawns, they are poor, and they are negligible.

The actual bourgeoisie, as in the texts you probably have read, and take this concept from, is a thing of the past. It is gone. In our modern world, their wealth has to be extracted differently, but it has to be extracted too.

The discrepancy between billionaires and the rest, in wealth (US$14.2 trillion out of US$110 trillion - the Gross World Product, GWP - (or 12.91%); or out of US$184 trillion - the world’s GDP in terms of PPP - (or 7.72%)), or in demographics (2781 people among 8100000000 (or, 0.000034%)) is making them a glitch.

To illustrate my point better (or at least try to), if we were to divide the entire planet according to that monetary value, each of those billionaires would own between 0.02‰ (GDP) and 0.05‰ (GWP) of the entire planet, on average. That’s equivalent to slices of the planet of 36 arcseconds (GDP) or 1 arcminute (GWP), on its entire latitude, and up to its rotation axle, per billionaire. Those would respectively correspond to slices 1.11km or 1.86km wide at the equator, or 789m or 1.31km wide at 45° latitude.

So, they are not part of our system, of the stupid LARP we all decided to play. They are on the side of it, exploiting it and making friends with the admins. They are not different from 14 year olds who found an infinite money glitch in an online game and keep pressing the fucking button over an over as if it would stop their parent’s divorce.

Eliminating class distinctions will not eliminate the existence of the billionaires. They will still have the same wealth, and so, the same power, because their wealth, or power, does not come from their status, as it used to; or as it does in the literature you are very likely (given the Marxist Leninist roots of this corner of the internet) basing yourself upon. It comes a psychotic abuse of systemic glitches.

Almost none of the literature you can find on the subject of classes will account for this. It is all so outdated it is irrelevant.

More than irrelevant, it is critically dangerous. Saying that “eliminating classes distinctions eliminates the existence of billionaires” is not just wrong: it is giving billionaires an opportunity to gaslight us further by pretending not to be the problem.

The bourgeoisie is bad.

But the real problem are the billionaires.

Don’t mix the two, killing all the bourgeois will not help us now. I’m not saying it should be off the table, I’m saying it would be a red herring the billionaires would likely employ to save their asses.

#killallbillionaires.

Alternatively, tax all worth beyond 1 billion at a 100% rate, and kill no one.

Let’s see which happens first…

If you need to provide tools that cross security boundaries then […] a small web app is better [than sudo].

A web app? Effin really!!? 🤨

I personally don’t think we’re getting anything. I always saw the “it takes time” point as a way to duck the issue until the community would forget about it entirely.

So, all in all, if you really want to get some answers, maybe wait enough time to give LMG more than enough time to investigate; so much so that using the “this wasn’t a reasonable amount of time” defence strategy would be impossible, and then try to get the community to care again. And ask for answers. I personally do not see this happening, ever, but I hope I’m wrong.

How about blackholing google to limit the damage instead? And you could limit it further by not using services that you know feed data to google.

Junior dev:

Straight out of uni, know the latest developments while having also studied long established standards and specifications (like POSIX, LSB, SQL, etc), full of energy, and ready to speedrun burning out any %

Senior dev:

Hasn’t learned anything substantial in decades, uses outdated specs because “who got the time for that, and legacy stuff works just as well anyway”, copy pastes most of their work from stack overflow, is only still employed because of their inside information knowledge and the utter absence of documentation leading to a bus factor of one, and has perfected the art of gaming the system to the point of photoshopping a sloppy IDE screen over their WoW game whenever a picture of them “working” gets taken.

Yeah, checks out.

I feel cucked having google only get most of my traffic. I am an alpha male, I want them to get all of my traffic.

This isn’t about you. Your data is key in making other, relevant people stand out. Why relevant? Because they resist. Because they aren’t depressed, they are fighting back. And whatever the reason that drives them, they can be manipulated. By compromising their anonymity. By making literally everyone else a “known variable”. With your help.

(> (explicit) (implicit))

Better lzma performance with xz. 🤪

In that case, your second and subsequent points should have no text, since the source material has no text for them. And the last point can’t arguably have text at all either way. 😉

More seriously, the source material has both texts and images, and it was your choice to only represent half of that. You could have easily written:

Technically, “without text nor image”. Your list is implying otherwise.

Would it not be “additive burn-in” and “subtractive burn-in” or something then? Or “differential burn-in?”

Oh, no, we totally can. We just need to buy local. What? It is “too expensive!!”? Yeah, well, tell me about being part of the problem…

Yeah, well, I would advise you against using google docs, but at least you are using Firefox 😅

the fact that you think the “G” stands for “Generative”

You’ve shown your IQ right there. No time to waste with you. Goodbye.

AGI

It depresses me that we have to find new silly acronyms to mean something we already had acronyms for in the first place, just because we are simply too stupid to use our vocabulary appropriately.

AI is what “AGI” means. Just fucking AI. It has been for more than half a century, it is sensical, and it is logical.

However, in spite of its name, the current technology is not really capable of generating information, so it isn’t capable of actual “intelligence”. It is pseudo-generation, which it achieves by sequencing and combining input (AKA training) data. So it does not generate new information, but rather new variations of existing information. Due to this fact, I would prefer the name of “Artificial Adaptability” (or “AA”, or " A2") to be used in lieu of “AI”, or “Artificial Intelligence” (on the grounds that it means something else entirely).

Edit: to the people it may concern: stop answering this about “Artifishual GeNeRaL intelligence”. I know what AGI means. It takes all of 3 seconds to do an internet search, and it isn’t even necessary: everyone has known for months. I did not bother to explicit it, because I did not imagine that anyone would be simple enough to take literally the first word starting with “g” from my comment and roll with that in a self-important diatribe on what they imagined I was wrong about. So if you feel the need to project what you imagine I meant, and then correct that, please don’t. I’m sad enough already that humanity is failing, I do not need more evidence.

Edit 2: “your opinion only matters if you have published papers”. No. Also it is a really stupid argument from authority. Besides, anyone with enough time on their hands can get papers published. It is not a guarantee of quality, but merely a proof that you LARPed in academy. The hard part isn’t writing, it is thinking. And as I wrote before, I already know this, I need no more proof, thank you.