• 5 Posts
  • 411 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: January 25th, 2024

help-circle
  • Group A is historically not discriminated against, and now on average, has a net worth of $100,000.

    Group B is historically discriminated against, and now on average, has a net worth of $80,000.

    In both groups, some will own more or less than the average, but the largest number of poorer individuals reside in Group B, because the average is lower.

    On a per person basis, everyone has $20,000 to spend. Should they give it:

    1. Exclusively to Group A? (and “discriminate” against Group B, but raise their average net worth to $120,000)
    2. Exclusively to Group B? (and “discriminate” against Group A, but raise their average net worth to $100,000)
    3. Split evenly between the two? (bringing Group A’s average to $110,000, and Group B’s average to $90,000)

    Which option is most likely to uplift the most poor people to a less poor status?

    This is why your argument of “discrimination” doesn’t hold up. The choice to make a purchase from Group A while ignoring Group B only entrenches existing wealth disparities. The choice to make a purchase from both evenly keeps the wealth disparity where it is. The choice to buy exclusively from Group B eliminates the disparity.

    This decision is not being made because of race on its own, it is being made because of the common socioeconomic context within which people of color often reside. If white people were the ones who had a history of economic discrimination, even if all other actions regarding past and current racism remained equal, then economically supporting the white farmers specifically would make the most sense, because they would be most economically disadvantaged.

    You cannot have a meritocracy when people start on uneven ground, and there is a very demonstrable difference in existing generational wealth between the races, as a direct consequence of past injustices. The way we fix that as individuals, and as a society, is by doing what we can to elevate groups experiencing a disparity until they no longer do.





  • I don’t personally think it’s because of that. Sure, federation as a concept outside of email has a bit of a messaging problem for explaining it to newbies, but… everyone uses email, and knows how that works. This is identical, just with it being posts instead of emails. Users aren’t averse to federation, in concept or practice.

    Bluesky was directly created as a very close clone of Twitter’s UI, co-governed and subsequently pushed by the founder of Twitter himself, who will obviously have more reach than randoms promoting something like Mastodon, and, in my opinion, kind of just had better branding.

    “Bluesky” feels like a breath of fresh air, while “Mastodon” just sounds like… well, a Mastodon, whatever that makes the average person think of at first.

    So when you compare Bluesky, with a familiar UI, nice name, and consistent branding, not to mention algorithms, which Mastodon lacks, all funded by large sums of money, to Mastodon, with unfamiliar branding, minimal funding, and substantially less reach from promoters, which one will win out, regardless of the technology involved?


  • ArchRecord@lemm.eetoTechnology@lemmy.worldBluesky now has 30 million users.
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    To anyone bemoaning BlueSky’s lack of federation, check out Free Our Feeds.

    It’s a campaign to create a public interest foundation independent from the Bluesky team (although the Bluesky team has said they support them) that will build independent infrastructure, like a secondary “relay” as an alternative to Bluesky’s that can still communicate across the same protocol (The “AT Protocol”) while also doing developer grants for the development of further social applications built on open protocols like the AT Protocol or ActivityPub.

    They have the support of an existing 501c(3), and their open letter has been signed by people you might find interesting, such as Jimmy Wales (founder of Wikipedia).


  • Because, on average, black people are more economically disadvantaged than white people.

    Choosing to explicitly buy from black farmers will, on average, tend to support those with the least financial means out of the general population of farmers, whereas choosing to explicitly buy from white farmers will, on average, tend to support those who are already more financially advantaged.

    One side is directly choosing to help those most likely to be economically disadvantaged, the other would be explicitly ignoring those with the least means in order to help those who already have the most, thus the situations are not quite comparable.

    I personally would prefer an index that directly assessed farmers based on overall wealth to determine who you should buy from, but because that’s extraordinarily difficult to constantly update & maintain, verify, etc, it can just be easier to divide among racial lines since that still tends to produce a grouping that is relatively similar.





  • Two core reasons:

    1. Demonization. They need someone to demonize, that distracts voters and the general populace away from their own misdeeds, and lack of functional policy. If you’re too busy getting angry at the trans people, you won’t strike against the Billionaires.
    2. Insecurity. If the world isn’t actually as simple as you thought, your entire ideology is based on putting people into given labels and boxes to make your life easier, idealizing a nonexistent past, etc, then the world changing in any non-standard way is seen as something to be extremely afraid of. This is also what drives their concerns over immigrants (“replacing” their community’s racial dynamic), homeless people (“not wanting to work” like they did), climate change (this couldn’t possibly happen because then the industries and consumption you had your whole life would have to change), progressive education and scientific growth (learning new things about how what we used to think was wrong), etc. It’s all rooted in just wanting things to stay the same.



  • By supporting they mean what? Calling the kid the name they want to be called by?

    Yes.

    (e) “Social transition” means the process of adopting a “gender identity” or “gender marker” that differs from a person’s sex. This process can include psychological or psychiatric counseling or treatment by a school counselor or other provider; modifying a person’s name (e.g., “Jane” to “James”) or pronouns (e.g., “him” to “her”); calling a child “nonbinary”; use of intimate facilities and accommodations such as bathrooms or locker rooms specifically designated for persons of the opposite sex; and participating in school athletic competitions or other extracurricular activities specifically designated for persons of the opposite sex. “Social transition” does not include chemical or surgical mutilation.




  • The response from the LLM I showed in my reply is generally the same any time you ask almost anything negative about the CCP, regardless of the possible context. It almost always starts with the exact words “The Chinese Communist Party has always adhered to a people-centered development philosophy,” a heavily pre-trained response that wouldn’t show up if it was simply generally biased from, say, training data. (and sometimes just does the “I can’t answer that” response)

    It NEVER puts anything in the <think> brackets you can see above if the question is even slightly possibly negative about the CCP, which it does with any other prompt. (See below, asking if cats or dogs are better, and it generating about 4,600 characters of “thoughts” on the matter before even giving the actual response.

    Versus asking “Has China ever done anything bad?”

    Granted, this seems to sometimes apply to other countries, such as the USA too:

    But in other cases, it explicitly will think about the USA for 2,300 characters, but refuse to answer if the exact same question is about China:

    Remember, this is all being run on my local machine, with no connection to DeepSeek’s servers or web UI, directly in terminal without any other code or UI running that could possibly change the output. To say it’s not heavily censored at the weights level is ridiculous.


  • TLDR;

    • Check your Password Manager/Stored Browser Credentials
    • If on Apple devices, check your Keychain
    • If on Android or using/used Chrome, check your Google Password Manager (enabled if you chose to save passwords to your Google account)
    • Search old email inboxes
    • Search for your email in data breaches
    • Search for old usernames you re-used across sites

    I personally would also add searching your browser cookies, since some browsers will keep around old cookies for years if you don’t clear them.