Sumsnag

Disappointing ending? As Above, So Below? Oh I’m sorry but…

Looked at this way, the ending is thrillingly deep. Seriously, once Dick Gregory’s observation* is understood, this movie encourages an irreplaceable insight. It’s a trip though, you’re right about that, from “riding high,” as you say, to the darkest of depths, which is all-too-easily missed. Good flick, give it another go; the movie is the ride, the ending is the worthy destination.

• “Before you argue with someone ask yourself: Is this person mentally mature enough to grasp the concept of different perspective? If not, there is no point to argue.” — Dick Gregory

True in a way. However, there is a rather large collection of speculation on the Internet that is quite an undertaking to correct. And a large population of people and bots willing to speculate. Also, having once been speculated, each speculation takes on a life of its own. If it gets much more substantial, forget Skynet, we’re busy creating Specunet and its sidekick Confusionet – an insidious duo.

(Uhhh, AI in charge of censorship? So no one knows how decisions are made? No one can know with AI. That’s just a large mistake. The other ideas have some merit though.)

Gotta start somewhere though, gotta start somewhere.

Be careful of printers with chipped toner though. Older models still rock.

Digging a little – an article (from 2009) about an interview (2005) that paraphrases the interviewee is a little suspect. Chomsky’s take on the interview, in his words: “Even when the words attributed to me have some resemblance to accuracy, I take no responsibility for them, because of the invented contexts in which they appear.”

I dunno, that example is at least 3 steps removed (interviewer, editor, article writer) from a source that already speaks plenty clearly and doesn’t need much more than to be read honestly.

Here’s a start: Understanding Power has a PDF of all the sources in the footnotes of the book by the same name. Or, if you’re really looking for voluminous elaboration, this purports to be a list of source references, sorted by publisher, with links to the books.

someone who can explain how the world really works.

And that person is?

This looks to be more an endorsement of moderation principles and rules, not determining truth of comments.

For the difficulties in determining what’s true, see the kerfuffle about Media Bias Fact Check.

There’s certainly a history of Unix and Unix-like forks; which is rather simple compared to the Linux distro forks (go right to the big pic).

There is something to this; however, there are historical examples of rather quick progress. FDR for one (public work projects and infrastructure, financial reforms, regulations, social security, etc.), when old and young, the president, government employees, the whole general public (with some exceptions), held to popular principles of egalitarian fairness against the few unconscionably rich. A time of tasty pills.

deleted by creator

Huh, that’s so, it was there last January. It used to follow this paragraph (still there today anyway), which contains a similar criticism with citation:

It is widely used and has sometimes been criticised for its methodology.[4] Scientific studies[5] using its ratings note that ratings from Media Bias/Fact Check show high agreement with an independent fact checking dataset from 2017,[6] with NewsGuard[7] and with BuzzFeed journalists.

So if those are considered fact-based, there’s no need to delve further.

However, Wikipedia editors consider Media Bias/Fact Check as “generally unreliable”, recommending against its use for what some see as breaking Wikipedia’s neutral point of view.

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Bias/Fact_Check

Though errors are somewhat monitored by Retraction Watch.

Or as Dijkstra puts it: “asking whether a machine can think is as dumb as asking if a submarine can swim”.

Alan Turing puts it similarly, the question is nonsense. However, if you define “machine” and “thinking”, and redefine the question to mean: is machine thinking differentiable from human thinking; you can answer affirmatively, theoretically (rough paraphrasing). Though the current evidence suggests otherwise (e.g. AI learning from other AI drifts toward nonsense).

For more, see: Computing Machinery and Intelligence, and Turing’s original paper (which goes into the Imitation Game).

It’s tricky to talk about hardly anything in a forum where you can’t say “it’s more than that.”

When it comes to food, a growing portion of humans are hungry or headed toward hunger. It’s not the only concern, water, food, shelter, all the basic Maslow’s necessities are getting harder to come by. Harder each month. There’s plenty of other concerns: corporate, government, education, and even scientific corruption, greedy billionaires; which are each and together still only part of the problem. The problems are systemic, and that right there is why you can’t talk about any one thing without recognizing there’s so much more. Calling it “tinfoily” is dismissing how immediately vital food prices and availability are, even while there are many other important issues. And the way the media selects and times articles is another one of those.

Oooooh, okay, I misread. Apologies.

Yet use AI (possibly) to determine users’ AI answers.