KillingTimeItself

i’m blanket banned from .ml presumably over genocide debate, and i’ve been clocked on my instance a few times as well.

Though only for a week each time, so that’s interesting.

yeah uh, that’s the joke. That’s the obviously implication of the joke here.

That’s like saying that “all murderers are bad” and then me going “well hey don’t you think is a little bit broad of a generalization? And unfair to people who were unfairly charged, or perhaps in inconvenient but justified circumstances?”

You could make the meme say “lemmy.ml tankies running free posting tankie bullshit” but that doesn’t roll as well as “lemmy.ml doing tankie things because lemmy.ml seems to have no problem with tankies existing”

i assume “be civil” just means that you can’t call people “dipshit asshole dumbass idiot” and things akin to that, i.e needless name calling, calling out perceived problems as long as done civilly, or being rude, but in a civil discussed manner, is i think fair game.

i.e. i could call this a stupid post because it covers what should be clearly demonstrated by common moderation history, i.e. these kinds of threads stay around for a while, these kinds of comments tend to stick around, and that’s generally good enough reason to keep moderating as you are, precedent is a very strong thing.

but i couldn’t just call you a dumbass because you should know this, and therefore you must be the most uneducated person in the history of humanity. Because that’s not civil.

i like to think of anarchism as the educated brother to the miscarried libertarian-ism.

It’s harsh, but i’ve never seen a libertarian make a good point, or understand anything remotely relevant to government, so.

I think anarchy, by the very nature of it’s existence is more suited to handle the challenges presented by no government existing, notably, a new government being created. Because anarchy is most often following a government collapse, and followed by a new government being created.

we do a little bit of dbzer0ing

We can always do far and away better than capitalism

i think the real ticket, for global economics, especially ones that are going to be sustainable is going to be some sort of pseudo capitalist society. Especially one with a free market. Free market decentralization is a hard target to beat.

There’s room for a lot of interesting study here, i’m not sure any exists, and i’ve yet to see any unfortunately, it’s mostly just people dickwagging around trying to do the le socialism thing, which is funny, i guess.

i’ve had interactions with a lot of normal people on lemmy.ml, i’ve also had a lot of interactions with a lot of really fucking weird people on lemmy.ml

i’m also blanket banned on lemmy.ml as well, so that’s fun. They don’t really like dissenting opinion over there.

man this is such runglish holy shit

dbzer0 is chill if you like the more corner posting type shit, as well as some piracy related shit.

to better analogize this, you’re hanging around a nazi rally trying to find friends, and people keep calling you a nazi for some reason.

Weird.

love me a classic .ml worthless posting, it’s my favorite.

i would fundamentally disagree, with gambling statistically on average, you always lose. It’s not mathematically possible to win.

This is the reason that things like investment work at all.

It’s complicated, but there are a lot of traders that aren’t very good, and there are a lot of traders that are very good, if you just let the market do it’s natural thing, it has a general tendency to go up. Especially long term, you cannot functionally do this with gambling, you ALWAYS lose.

I would argue that there are risky investments, and then safer investments, and there are really risky investments. None of these are gambling, gambling would be like i said investing most of your life savings, into a particular thing expecting a particular result, with the extreme risk of “losing everything” generally investments are never going to “lose everything” that’s also why you have a broader portfolio.

I think gambling is just a fundamentally different philosophical concept.

I guess theoretically nothing stops you from literally gambling with stocks, but that would be incredibly stupid.

shouldn’t this be the default position of the economy though? Especially in a democratic society, where voters are actually educated.

The workforce is your primary labor pool, so assuming enough governmentally enforced labor protections, and significant drawbacks in more exploitation, it will inevitably trend towards less.

good news for you, there is a lot of open source AI shit out there that you can start fucking with today or tomorrow even. The technicality is that doing anything particular exciting requires about a billion dollars in hardware to actually train models and create usable data sets lol.

What people in this space are trying to do is absolutely replace workers so that businesses can save on payroll and increase margins. They don’t say it, but it’s telling how they dance around the topic.

i’m sure they are, business owners would have 0 employees if they could, but i’m just not convinced that AI is at a point now, or will ever be at a point where it can ever do that effectively. Maybe in an amazon warehouse, which is probably for the better anyway.

Your debt, the one that deeply affects your life, that can ruin your ability to make basic purchases and health care is a simple gamble for the rich, OUR debts.

well no, so there are technically two types of debt, personal debt, the kind of shit you have on your car or house. Which are generally negative, and then investment based debt, a debt that is presumed on the potential future evaluation of a company for example. This is inline with how a lot of VC funding is done, although more complex.

There’s also the concept of having asset backed debt, for example a car, or a house. The downside here is that cars and houses are generally very important to daily life, but if your debt is based on the valuation of your company for example, that inherently holds significantly less personal risk to you.

There’s also a much more complex macro economic theory, where if extremely large players go down, a significant portion of the economy also goes down. It might be beneficial for a government to absolve the debt of a national company if for example, it protects broadly from a significant economic retraction, similar to the kinds we’ve seen before like in the great depression. Granted in that case, we did nothing, and everything imploded, globally.

shouldn’t gambling be defined as a strictly asset lacking market environment? Meaning there is no actual value within the trading being done, and the fact that it is purely and entirely speculative on nothing other than “optimal odds”

Where as the market in question would be defined more accurately as a potentially unstable (as all markets are, welcome to capitalism) commodity trading marketplace.

They will make off like bandits when the tariffs hit.

well then you would be a very bad investor to not jump in on the market hype, assuming your statement is right and that everything will implode.

gambling

it’s not gambling, it’s the equivalent of you putting 60% of all of your life savings into a single stock, which then blips and implodes, making you go completely broke.

It was an incredibly risky investment strategy at the time, because the market was seen as risk negative, essentially.

If it were gambling there would be a 51-49 split in returns somewhere along the way, with hundreds of hours and putting money into machines slowly eating away the money you earn, until you’re left a shriveled husk of a person with nothing to your name.

Beats being a conspiracy theorist. I would be a science communicator any day of the week, over being insane.

In the article it directly tells you "the facilities could increasingly demand a gigawatt or more of power — one billion watts — or about twice the residential electricity consumption of the Pittsburgh area last year.

again, this is just a statement What even is a gigawatt here specifically? A gigawatt over the period of a week? A month? A year? 10 years? What’s the time frame we’re talking about here, what’s the real world implications of “facilities” are we talking a group of 10 data centers? What does this even mean? Are we talking about reactive power or real power?

Also to be clear, it looks like this is contract negotiation, not even listed power consumption. So it looks like we’re talking about what the grid is willing to supply at most at the utility hookup point. Not the actual consumption capability. It’s still technically a kind of consumption, but it’s the same as paying for gigabit speed internet, and then not using it at gigabit speed the entire time, you might be paying for that theoretical gigabit link, but unless you’re actually using it, it means nothing.

A gigawatt-size data center using 85% of its peak demand over the course of a year will consume nearly as much energy as 710,000 U.S. households or 1.8 million people.

looking into the article some more, it looks like they even said as much. Over the course of a year it’s about 1GW. If we;re converting this into real world units, this is about 3 million watts a day. Which is still a useless unit because watts are measured over the course of a second. Interestingly converting it into seconds, a unit where watts actually makes sense, it seems like this is an average continual consumption, on the range of seconds, of about 30 watts, constantly. This is like, a light fixture with LED lights, running 24/7 over the period of a year. Your phone is literally comparable to this.

It looks like global energy consumption across the entire world for the year has been about 180,000 TWh To be clear, 1GW is a completely different order of magnitude compared to the global consumption that is the entire earth.

I provided a link. Did you not see it?

yeah no i saw it, but you never cited anything actually useful to your argument so i just assumed it was irrelevant, otherwise you would’ve included it, or at least mentioned it. But you didn’t.

Why are you talking to me this way? 🤔

because people just say shit and then expect it to win arguments, not understanding literally anything about how arguments work apparently.

To be clear, i mentioned a very true fact, which you then responded to with an entirely different, irrelevant, but also true fact. Do you expect me to pat you on the back for pointing out that the sky is blue after i solve cancer? There is a standard for making an argument, and that barely meets the standard for making a statement.

If you wanted to counter the fossil fuels point, you could’ve pointed to the fact that china has one of the largest and fastest growing renewable energy sectors, globally, which would’ve actually been relevant, and a pretty ok point to make.

like i try to be nice, but it’s really hard when people are literally just ignoring what you’re saying, shoving their fingers into their ears, and then mentioning something else that they like instead. It’s not even a conversation at that point, you’re discussing past the other person.

Yeah, because we outsourced our industry to them. They consume that electricity making stuff for us. It’s all for external consumption. It’s real easy to reduce electricity consumption when you shut down your manufacturing capacity lol

yeah, that’s generally how manufacturing economies tend to work. You could make the argument that AI in the US is equivalent to manufacturing industry in china for example.

Again, they make everything for everyone else. They’re the world’s factory. Just because a widget is manufactured in China doesn’t actually mean China is the sole country responsible for the emissions from manufacturing the widget.

oh, interesting, so you’re telling me it’s not actually the companies that are responsible for all of the pollution, but in fact it’s actually the consumers that buy the products, that enable the companies to then pollute the earth? Did i get that correct?

Yet even so, new energy production capacity is not coming from coal. Why are we talking about this anyway?

oh, see i thought we were concerned about like, the environmental effects of pollution on things like global warming from things like AI, which are primarily US based, and not actually a massive consumer of dirty energy compared to countries like china who mostly consume coal power, a very dirty source of energy, where you could very easily make significant changes to impact significant carbon emissions.

It’s almost like hyper-focusing on a technicality of a specific thing that happens to be negative is worse than focusing on the actual problem behind that negative. Weird.

China makes useful stuff with the energy they consume!

oh interesting, so what about things like shein and temu, and fast fashion, and a lot of consumable electronics products that come straight from factories in china? Or is there a magic utility to these products, even though they are inevitably going to be waste product given enough time.

AI makes bad art, bad articles, bad videos, bad music, and bad customer service bots.

and you’re just using it incorrectly, if you burn fabric in a giant pile, it does little more than produce a lot of carbon, and create a little pile of ash, i guess we should delete the entire textiles industry under this basis.

AI is just burning energy for nothing.

so is Chinese manufacturing, since it’s using primarily dirty energy, compared to another country producing a similar thing using cleaner energy, it’s literally “creating carbon for nothing” Just stop buying Chinese steel. Simple as that.