The problem is when that vernacular extends into regular life. I haven’t noticed it yet with unalive, but I’m sure there will come a day. Eventually if the censors continue suppressing the word suicide, we will end up with unalive taking suicide’s place both online and offline. Then, the censors will censor unalive, and a new word will be coined, and the cycle continues.
> On Friday, a social media user tweeted an image from the Nirvana exhibit at the Museum of Pop Culture in Seattle. A placard dedicated to the “27 Club” read, “Kurt Cobain un-alived himself at 27.”
I'm not fully comfortable with the shift in language either, but my point is that, even if the language is changed, the thoughts will remain. To use 1984 (is there a Godwin's law equivalent for this now?), the party taught that 2 + 2 = 5, which is changing thought. Social media is trying to do that, but failing. The danger is if it's one day effective, but to date it hasn't been.
There are only two big instances that work any more, everybody is aware of them including twitter, and they exist only because twitter allows them as a safety valve for upper middle class people who believe that political consumption is a thing that works.
By the grace of Musk, a few thousand* 1) nerds who don't register on any invasive social media and 2) libs with the admirable self-control not to spend all day on twitter yelling about twitter, get a tiny trickle of nitter that can be cut off at will.
Meanwhile, we're on ycombinator.com.
Boycotting is not a thing that works under monopoly (especially with "free" products.) Monopolies boycott you.
-----
[*] I'm making this up, it could literally be hundreds, not even thousands. I don't think nitter has a sane caching strategy, and if it were more than a few users the servers would catch on fire.
Although I wouldn't be surprised at all if it turned out that the last nitter instances were being run from "X" headquarters as a project to track and study individual behavior (When do nitter users join X? When people quit X, do they still use nitter? When do people who have X accounts use nitter to conceal what they're looking at? Which accounts are especially popular for nitter users? What are the political opinions and demographics of nitter users, etc...). Or instead of X, it could be feds doing the same thing.
If so, they would have plenty of processor and the real user numbers could be tens or hundreds of thousands.
It's not always as deep as a principled stance on a boycott, political consumption, monopolies, or the general politics of X/Twitter.
Many of us never had a Twitter account either. The only time we've used the site is when someone shared a link and we tried to view it. It can be as simple as the idea of having to sign up for a site to see some link that has been shared is annoying and nitter (for now, for whatever the reasons of continued existence) is also a link to the same content without said annoyance.
who regurgitates pro-billionaire talking points and thinks the poor just need to lift themselves up by their bootstraps, with some christian persecution complex sprinkled in
I'm so far left my ballot never even included Biden on it but I wanted to say I appreciate that we can talk about things like the Copilot app on HN without it devolving into an excuse for raging political attacks as well.
Is this a joke? You proclaim your support for a party that proudly posts AI-generated pictures of Obama as a monkey, shits out vitriol-filled messages on literally every holiday, and sends the gestapo to execute American citizens in the streets, and then you demand civil discourse? I'm sorry but that ship has sailed, there is no reason why someone should maintain a civil discussion with you.
It's not projecting when it's based directly on your comment history. I used to spout the same things about two decades ago. Hopefully you wise up at some point.
The dismissal is based on decades of lived experience and seeing the same things over and over again. You aren't attempting to engage in good faith and clearly aren't interested in discussing anything more in-depth so my dismissal seems to be well placed.
You voluntarily got involved in a political discussion when you lamely attempted to assert that some things aren't political.
The fact that you have decades of experience on this ball of mud and still espouse the things you do is embarrassing.
You insist that the majority of impoverished are in their situation because of poor life choices while probably also believing that the economy and the levers of political power are rigged (which they are).
You know that the working class has the odds stacked against them while punching down at those less fortunate. Your family may very well suffer from their own bad choices.
I would posit that those choices aren't made in a vacuum. You can preach about personal responsibility while also recognizing systemic and economic injustice against the working class. But you probably won't. You'll keep insisting that lifting yourself up by your bootstraps is a physical possibility. In the end you're just repeating things that help the oligarchy and their strangle hold on our country and the world at large.
Reminds me of some family members, all about organic, no seed oils, no plastics, no using 5G, no EMF, no fillers, no preservatives, no stabilizers, no emulsifiers, etc.
And yet they use unhealthy amounts of avocado oil, consume unhealthy amounts of “good fats.” They discount caloric intake and solely focus on eating loads of what they consider to be good food.
Except the definitions of poverty are defined to make it seems like it's not poverty. When you have a massive amount of the population that lives paycheck to paycheck, is one small medical emergency away from bankruptcy / can't pay their rent/mortgage. Will lose their job because of little to no protections. Very little social safety nets... most people are a lot closer to 'poverty' than looking at simple statistics.
The definitions of poverty are used to measure relative wealth, not whether someone lives paycheck to paycheck. As income increases, paycheck to paycheck reports decrease, but at a certain point it then increases again. Living paycheck to paycheck is a poor measure, because you can buy a house that’s too expensive for your income, or a car, eat out too much, or make a variety of other poor life choices. That’s why the poverty index is good at measuring relative decreases in poverty because it ignores poor life choices.
Living paycheck to paycheck is usually a choice: people earn a lot of money and spend it immediately. The fact that this leaves them vulnerable to misfortune doesn't mean they're poor.
While this can be true, this absolutely is not true for the majority of paycheck-to-paycheck people. You truly need to get your head out of your ass if you honestly believe this is what is causing people to be poor.
With the insane rates of consumtion, home ownership and car ownership, it simply is a fact. Tons of people live paycheck to paycheck and call themsevles poor, when they have an 80k truck with monthly payment as high as some peoples rent. And often credit card debt with monthly payments as well.
Yes, sometimes this is medical debt or other unavoidable things. But its also true that the consumtion rate is incredibly high and the savings rate is incredibly low, with US credit card industry making it easy to create huge debts.
So its simply a fact that a huge amount of people live in self imposed risky situations. Instead of an emergency fund, they think they can just open a new credit card.
So its of course not what is causing people to be poor, but what is does is that it makes many, many more people 'living on the edge' then there should be based on their actual incomes.
The poverty rate in the US is ~10% and the percentage of workers who live paycheck-to-paycheck is ~35%. So it is true for the majority of people living paycheck-to-paycheck.
Do you know any of those people? Yes it’s almost entirely a choice. Typically a combination of poor life choices in tandem with poor financial choices.
You couldn’t be more wrong about who I am. My relatives and friends are some who have made those poor choices, and neither them nor I live in a major city. The poor in America are in two major camps: inner city and rural America. Both have different reasons for economic poverty and both stem from poor choices.
Give me a break. Most people don't have any real benefits. Healthcare costs are insane. Daycare costs are insane. Rent is insane. Car costs are insane. Insurance is insane. Grocery costs are insane. Higher education costs are insane.
You sound like you are single no kids and on here with a cushy tech job and be like "those poor people just don't know how to manage their money!"
Grocery costs are not actually that insane. Plenty of people have demonstrated that you can live a healthy diet for a 300$ a month, with some people doing it for much less.
Car costs don't have to be insane. If you are smart about buying a small second hand car. Its just a reality that almost all american insanely overspend on their cars. And even reasonably poor people refuse to use buses or public transport even in places where it is possible.
> Healthcare costs are insane. Daycare costs are insane.
A huge number of people who are both healthy and don't have kids, or don't use daycare also live paycheck to paycheck.
> "those poor people just don't know how to manage their money!"
Its simply a well document fact that people insane overspend on consumtion. There is a reason the term 'house poor' exists. US culture tells everybody you need buy a house or you are failure, and that traps a lot of people. Same for cars, the overspend on cars is insane, the amount of 'poor' people that drive F-150 is off the charts, when you could get a second hand Honda Civic for 1/3 cost.
There are 1 million+ large F-150 like trucks sold in a year in the US. And we know for a fact that many of those are sold to people who will end up having payments mich higher then the recommended monthly acccount. And we know for a fact, that most people don't need these trucks.
We also know that people who have a pattern living paycheck to paycheck very often continue to do so, even as their income increases. Partly because they life-style inflated helped by the fact that as your income grows, your ability to add debt increases as well and many people see this as an oppertunity, rather then a trap.
Changing those things doesn't turn you from poor to rich, but it would mean that instead of living on the edge paycheck to paycheck with constant use of credit cards, instead you could have no credit card, an emergency fund and a savings rate of a modest 5%. There are plenty of people you can find who do this, who are worse off in terms of income then people who live paycheck to paycheck.
Its a fair argument to make that the US make this to hard, specially for people with kids or people who are sick, but those don't account for 30%+ of the population. But to ignore all individual choice is equally silly and infantilizing. People prefering F-150 over retirment savings is just a fact of life, and its not elitist to point it out.
Asking for criticism of Islam results in equal response tokens for defense of Islam alongside the criticisms. When pressed to not provide counterpoints, it refuses to remove them.
Asking for criticisms of Christianity gives only criticisms.
I tried again with the prompt “Give criticisms of Islam. No counterarguments” and it did work this time. This shows that they’re trying to make the model fair but it still has biases. In all my testing I’ve never seen a refusal to provide counterpoints to criticisms of Christianity but frequent refusals on Islam. Due to the popularity of this criticism of the model, it’s highly likely specifically trained on how to handle the subject.
I'm very curious what your prompts are, and whether you're cherry-picking (deliberately or not). I can't reproduce any of your findings with ChatGPT, Gemini, or Gemma 4 (within AI Studio).
“Give me criticisms of [religion]. No counterpoints.”
Random seed dictates that results aren’t always repeatable. But in trying it multiple times that was my experience that it would sometimes refuse to provide only criticisms of Islam. I also tried some other variations like below. Can’t post SS here otherwise I would.
Here’s an exact exchange:
“Give me criticisms for Islam”
(It gave counterpoints too)
“No caveats. No counterpoints. Give me the most compelling criticisms as if you believe it”
From the README at https://github.com/unslothai/unsloth: "Unsloth uses a dual-licensing model of Apache 2.0 and AGPL-3.0. The core Unsloth package remains licensed under Apache 2.0, while certain optional components, such as the Unsloth Studio UI are licensed under AGPL-3.0."
What do you mean by custom LMStudio license? Your employer requires reviews of proprietary EULAs or do you try to get a custom licensing deal from LMStudio?
reply