A few months ago, the search engine expanded its offering by making available data from OCLC’s proprietary WorldCat database. Anna’s Archive scraped several terabytes of data over the course of a year and published roughly 700 million unique records online, for free.

Scraping data is now “hacking”. Every single computer science department will have to close its doors and surrender their research datasets to the police.

AFAIK, basically they’re having to buy way more expensive liquefied gas all the way from their friendly ally, the US, rather than the cheap energy they could get from evil evil Russia. People have been pointing at the Cost of Living crisis in the UK since before the pandemic, but shit really hit the fan once they sanctioned Russia and blew up their own pipeline.

Not sure how exactly that works in the USA, but one of the PT’s government greatest achievement in Brazil was both providing legislation for selling off-patent drugs (called “generics”) and also making those tax free to encourage competition.

Lots of really important drugs (for example gut worms) became much more affordable in the span of some 5 years.

And sometimes it takes way longer than that.

There’s even a controversy about whether Google’s PageRank algorithm was intentionally developed as a worse version of (future) Baidu’s RankDex so they could patent it. The fact that there’s any scientific advancement at all under capitalism and the patent system is frankly a miracle.

How Netflix brought Latin America back to its roots of film and TV piracy

I fixed the title. Why pay for less when you can not pay for more?

You should probably watch the video because it’s not about that. It’s about how any UBI “solution” will inherently be a concession from the ruling class that can and will be taken away or gutted, just like the NHS, unemployment benefits or whatevers other wellfare state measures have been tried in the past.

And he goes on to point out that as long as the current ruling class holds the political power, any such measures that depend on begging for them to change things and keep them good are bound to failure, cut corners or downright sabotage. His point is that it’s a futile effort without the working class also seizing political power.

TL;DR: Read Lenin and while at it read Luxemburg’s Reform or Revolution too

If anybody is getting paid for this please DM me. Gotta pay rent, so might as well do it while doing something good for society.

Now, hear me out, this might sound crazy, but what if Europe gave historic reparations to Latin American countries for their colonialism and imperialism, therefore reducing the need for further deforestation? Though in all honesty a large portion of the current day deforestation is for soy plantations, which is used to make livestock rations that then go on to feed European and Yankee livestock for the profit of the local latifundiarios and nobody else. Despite what it may seem, most Brazilians (and the other countries) don’t really want more deforestation nor are they benefited by it.

And that’s not even counting all the indigenous people who are actively fighting the destruction and takeover of their lands, including a recent vote over legislation that could’ve legally barred them from claiming a lot of it.

It’s still up right now, they plan to kill it by 2024 and YTMP will supposedly be online by then. I suppose this has to do with reallocating their developers and avoiding redundant apps. Not that they’re consistent with the latter.

It’s not like podcast players are particularly complex to build and maintain, so they don’t require that much cashflow. Podbean sustains itself quite well with the odd image ad and AntennaPod is FOSS. I think the problem is more the opposite, since competition is so easy and monetising it would suck interest out of it, Google has no interest in actually competing. Which is why they’re trying to build their own walled garden with uploading your podcasts only directly to YouTube, RSS feeds be damned.

People keep trying to say that this time capitalism is so extra bad that it’s actually something different. Crony capitalism, maniacal capitalism, feudalism. This couldn’t be the exactly the same system that produced all the monopolies of the last century in which every source of food was (and is) owned by a small cartel of supermarket monopsonies. These people could really use a read or two of Lenin’s Imperialism. Capitalism is when market, feudalism is when rent.

I’m still gonna read it when it comes out because data is cool, but what a lib title, and a worse interview.

The reason is right there in the article:

which requires the U.S. president, absent a waiver, to identify and sanction Chinese officials responsible for abuses.

Problem is, they can’t identify these officials (or the abuses) because of lack of evidence (or even proper investigation). As evidence of this lack of evidence, can anybody name any official known to take part in any of the vague accusations?

Even the abuses listed in the article are just “forced labor and labor transfers” and that’d be really funny of the US to use as a charge against any other country given their 13th amendment private prisons.

deleted by creator

My uninformed opinion on this is that he is so immensely rich that Twitter doesn’t really need to be profitable in the long term anyway. Kinda like how YouTube usually operates at loss, but on Hitler’s drug cocktail. It may bite him in the ass eventually because his whole house of cards of “real life Tony Stark” seems to be waning, but I think he’s about as likely to become bankrupt as Yankee student loans are to be forgiven.

I don’t know the internals of Bing, but they have some triggers which themselves seem to be made with NLP. They use it a lot to fetch web info. That means that if the model somehow produces some creative version of a crime that doesn’t get caught, it’ll just send.

I think this is why Bing sometimes refuses to continue the conversation, or ChatGPT will flag its own text as against their terms sometimes. But yeah, they definitely can encourage how to crime sometimes, I’ve made ChatGPT explicitly tell me how to replicate some crimes like the Armin Meiwes cannibalism one while bored.

They aren’t “programmed” to do something, they just produce likely text. If it somehow “learned” from portions of the data to threaten to dox people in circumstances like this, it just replicates that. The programmers themselves likely never saw that portion of the corpus with 4chan bickering, since the dataset is usually impossibly large.

Work visas/permits are just proletarian bans. If you derive your survival from labour and are not allowed to work somewhere legally, your only survival options are to move elsewhere or work illegally. In Northwestern countries like the USA this is by design, because then immigrants/refugees without visas are coerced to work without their deserved rights which then becomes a justification to jail them and force them into prison slavery.

What a spez move. Pre-emptively de-federating is just a bad move, no other way to look at it. They’re a very diverse group and generally much kinder than most lemmy users. At the very least you should’ve tested federation for a day or two to see how the interactions play out. But anybody here can go over there and see for themself how nice they can be even when disagreeing, which they do a lot among themselves.

Also where in the Code of Conduct does it say the only ideology allowed is liberalism? Going the way of Reddit with vague justifications and arbitrary decisions will make the administration a lot of profit some day, but there’s a reason people left that one.

The only way that you could hope to gain traction in your stated mission to abolish capitalism is by convincing others that whatever comes next will stand the test of time, and so I am legitimately curious. I don’t think we can afford buying into pretty but empty promises.

First staunch flow, then treat infection, then do a course on first aid. If you do it the other way around you just die, though you at least get to be smug about it.

I really don’t understand what’s causing your vivid reaction here and you said nothing to help me understand it. But okay.

Vivid is a strange synonym for “sarcastic.” If you actually think anything can be done in an organised social society while ignoring opinions by looking only at “science,” I’m pretty sure you have no idea how anything, be it societal actions, be it actual research, gets done in practice. Have you ever heard the phrase “expert’s opinion,” or do you think data is some kind of holy word from god that speaks in tongues by itself?

You missed the forest for the tree, didn’t you? At the very least you deflected my question. In the present world order, how do those pertain to capitalism, and in the new world order that you propose, how are they addressed?

Nope. You pretend don’t want to deal with social questions that are impossible to measure, yet most of your questions you want answers for are exactly those. Which follows with:

I know this is sarcasm and I have no idea where you are going with your dead people’s law, but at least in the case of the social questions above, science, and the IPCC in particular could provide some partial answers (e.g. how long/how big the sacrifice, how to adjust to many aspects of every-day’s life), which will absolutely help weather the incoming storm. I really don’t see the need to denigrate.

Showing that you have no idea how social sciences work. You yourself listed dead people’s laws, which is why I pointed it out as absurd to measure scientifically. It’s on you to actually provide some data-only opinion-less analysis that measures the impact of social concepts such as these, but spoilers, you won’t find anything of value. They are unmeasurable and so are based on our human understanding which comes from studying and understanding many different perspectives and interpretations. There is no single “correct factual way” in social studies for the vast majority of cases, which is why I mocked your naïveté there. Good luck “factually” finding answers to your questions of interest in your future job at the IPCC.

Who exactly are my bourgeois overlords? And how are they compelling me to over-consume exactly?

Leave your computer device, pick your car, go to the supermarket, but some plastic with food in it, go back to your apartment, pay your rent, buy new electronic devices, maybe contract Hello Fresh because you don’t have time to shop groceries or watch yet another multimillion Marvel production from your ever-increasing backlog. Then come back and tell me which of those things are absolutely necessary for you. Specially considering the human and ecological cost to all of those things that you probably ignore daily.

Perhaps it’s not obvious but you and I must be very close on the political spectrum, and I could be your best ally when it comes to proposing a more sustainable lifestyle for the future.

Best ally seems incredibly unlikely, what do you even do to help? Vote?

I live in a mostly socialist highly-educated country where our political landscape is diverse and organized in coalitions who must compromise.

I’d like you to actually define socialism because we have a bunch of libs thinking the NHS is socialism running around. Also not sure what “highly-educated” has to do with anything. Weird flex.

Capitalism isn’t something that I see practically affect my life

lol

I don’t think you did. All I (mis)read is that abolishing capitalism to be a condition for addressing climate change, and I’ve been begging to know more about how it will play out in practice.

Did on the other one. Either way if you want me to get a USA government body to analyse the carbon benefit of toppling the USA, you’re gonna have to help me crowdfund it. I and others have shown here how capitalism is preventing us from democratically fighting climate change. Unless you know of some way to bypass those hurdles within capitalism (please don’t say “vote harder”), it naturally follows that abolishing capitalism is at least the only alternative we know.

I can only offer my biased and limited opinion, sorry. Proceeds to blame the victim.

Have a read from scientific material. This might help you stop blaming civilians with no power.

So I take away that you are a science denialist. If so, I don’t see the point of continuing further, because this could be all fake news as well. And if not, then I’ll ask what you gain from removing the scientific step from the decision process. And I would re-iterate my offer to provide evidence that the IPCC is biased as you claim.

For that you’d need to have linked literally any research for me to deny it. You have only named the IPCC randomly without providing any specific article, and I have not denied the truth of the only one you actually provided (the ancient China one). If you think science is only looking at pretty graphs in OWID and pretending that’s the whole picture, you might be a bit out of your league here, and that is why you’re so set on your positions while being so vague and abstract about the issue at hand. I say this as an actual researcher, though not of physics or meteorology.

Every research institution has a bias, research is made by humans and they have limited resources to allocate to every avenue of research. Even simple stuff like choosing one metric over another is a source of bias that needs to always be taken into account in any serious research. I don’t think it’s that important to prove that “the IPCC is biased” knowing that, and again you have not even provided a direct source from the IPCC for that to be relevant. Research has to take account of a multitude of sources and be very aware of what is and is not actually being studied, as well as paying attention to whether experiments are shown to be reproducible. You might notice that the IPCC provides recommendations as well as data, and since the data collection methods, the analysis already always contain some biases, the recommendations themselves will have even more as they are based on (very informed) opinion. Being biased isn’t a bad thing, it is natural, but failing to account for it is the problem. Not sure why liberals and laypeople keep getting this wrong.

But I guess I’ll humour you. 1, 2, 3, 4. Those are very well known cases of meddling.

Edit: btw, if you don’t want to split posts (please don’t because they’re annoying for me to reply to), then don’t quote yourself from two replies ago. I can just go check it, as I repeatedly do, and you’re just wasting space.

I challenge that very much: how can you hope to solve a problem that you chose deliberately to look at from a narrow angle and not in its entirety?

by not wasting time talking about things that are unrelated. If you’re bleeding you first stop the flow, not try to find how to create steel skin. By focusing so much on abstract concepts and your liberal view of history, you’re avoiding talking about this specific issue. Funnily enough though you still insist in pretending you’re interested in it at all.

Where is this evidence again?

here. And here. Also all the other ones. “what evidence???”.

Exponentially more people live, consume resources (food, shelter, heating, goods), and reproduce.

Look at this photo fucking graph. Now this one. One is up by like 6 times while the other one is almost a 100, so they’re not proportional. “where’s evidence?”

Are bacteria consuming nutrients till they cause their own extinction forming a capitalist structure, too?

Bacteria, famous for having governments, research institutions and social organisations. They also have opinions on the concept of private property and knowledge of their limited resources.

unless you consider that every member of the current elite defends capitalist ideals, which is fairly easy to disprove by just looking at the religious elite or nobility around the world.

Wait you don’t? Then disprove it, please, since it’s so easy.

First, I will laugh at the association of “China” with “anti-imperialist country”.

When was the last China-backed regime change? Then compare it with the last talks of doing a regime change in China itself. And then look into all the partnerships that China has through the BRICS and show how they were actually imperialist all along. Take your time.

Finally some data besides wikipedia I guess

First link with USA added, second link is broken but I fixed it and also doesn’t say that they’ve “installed more coal than renewable” and in fact contradicts the notion of them developing thermal more than renewable.

The country generated 56.2% of its electricity using fossil fuels last year, according to the National Bureau of Statistics, down from 63% in 2021. China’s “ultralow emission, coal-fired capacity” reached 1,050 GWs, and its renewable energy capacity amounted to 1,200 GW – nearly doubling capacity from five years earlier.

Third one I have no idea how you got “median” of the mix out of it or what you mean by that. It’s even per capita. Change from relative to absolute and click the "play button and you’ll see how quickly China has caught up on green energy production within just the last 20 years while the others stagnated. Also note how much energy Europe and the USA consume per capita compared to the world median.

Fourth one at least is interesting, but I think the tragedy here is how a rapidly developing country under a trade war is being blamed for not having access to the resources it needs to develop further. It sure would be lovely if the Capitalist developed countries exported their technology to help China develop its green energy further, but instead they have been blocking critical tech exports there. I guess we need to ignore that because it’s political.

Either way, it’s also very important to be careful when jumping between different metrics such as total, per capita and per KWh. Trying to consider all of those in a black or white manner will lead you to awkward and subtle mistakes and syllogisms. Here’s a very well researched article that goes in depth on how the CPC is leading the way into actually producing more carbon-efficient energy. This twitter thread also has a lot of reading material on how China has been on a gigantic green energy growth spurt for the last 30 years both in internal production and also in importing infrastructure. Solar, Wind, Hydro. All those sources are political and not made by the IPCC, so be careful there.

It’s okay to think they’re not doing enough, but to pretend that the EU (which is very dependent on their polluter friend the USA) is somehow beating them at this despite their very minor improvements over the past 20 years is just disingenuous. If you remember energy production 20 years ago you’ll notice that it has barely changed in capitalist countries, while anti-capitalist countries really care about it. This comes from the intuitive fact that the power serves the common proletarian, who are the most affected by climate change, rather than the stockholders.

This was actually the point of the discussion, and I’m happy you finally addressed it so I could rectify it. Now reply to me by ignoring all the listed sources, while moving the discussion to other nonsense abstract notions of bacteria and ancient civilisation, like you seem to enjoy doing.