Skip Navigation

Posts
28
Comments
235
Joined
5 yr. ago

  • Well, the good thing about Jerboa is that anyone can just make changes to it and send them to the devs, so now that more people are using Lemmy, it will improve really quickly!

  • His logic is not unreasonable, but a few complaints from my side if that's okay:

    • Russia would not be able to make significant territorial gains anyway, and Putin seems to be aware of this. He has repeatedly stated that Russia is in great disadvantage against the West and that his country is fighting for its existence, rather than to expand its already large territory.
    • Ukraine being militarily favorable to the West is indeed a threat to Russia, and in fact an existential one. Putin would be really stupid to let that threat develop, so the smart course of action here is the one he is taking. This has occurred multiple times in the past with other countries; e.g. the Cuban missile crisis is a prime example.
    • The Donbass war started in 2014 after the Ukrainian government was overthrown. Citizens overwhelmingly voted for a supposedly pro-Russian Zelenskyy to end this situation. So I doubt joining NATO or fighting Russia at all would be their desire. In fact, some territories under Russian control voted to join Russia.
    • A peace deal with Russia is a practical way to end the destruction Scholz is talking about. If this is not an option, then the argument against it must be something different from the destruction itself.
    • Imperialism is an economic concept, not a territorial one. Very slightly expanding your country's territory is not imperialism.
    • Finally, US officials admitted both that they had been preparing for this war and that they expected Ukraine to attack first, meaning that the conflict was bound to occur regardless of Putin's actions.
  • I'd say it is indeed a chelating agent, albeit one with a wider spectrum and some degree of specificity for heavy ions.

  • Yeah, sorry... Eliminative materialism is the belief that subjective experiences like consciousness can't possibly be defined or explained because they simply don't exist. According to this, they are just an illusion. As extreme and counter-intuitive as this may sound, it is a plausible explanation for the phenomenon of ego death, which I have experienced myself (in the medical, non-spiritual, drug-induced sense, an extreme form of depersonalization), and would under this school of thought simply entail a temporary malfunction of the mechanisms sustaining this illusion.

    Since eliminative materialists deny that consciousness can be defined at all, this meme implies that they feel contempt and frustration towards repeatedly failed attempts to do so.

  • "LLMs don't understand what they say, they just try to sound like they do" is a sentence that denotes a good understanding of how AI works, as expected from an "expert on AI". However, it makes a comparison with human intelligence that either assumes we know how it works, or shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how it works. For all we know, either our brain is a mystery (and thus we can't really state whether an AI "understands" anything, since we can't even define what that means), or, as research on neurobiology seems to indicate, it's just large-scale deep learning, with more ad-hockery for evolutionary stuff, and two orders of magnitude more energy-efficient.

  • No, they are acting in self interest. Just like everyone else. Every player is incentivized to join the strongest player if they can.

  • Basically, RISCV itself is open source, but it's just a specification. Actual processor designs implementing it are usually not open source.

  • MIR it will be for now... Although my plan is to get a Master's in Biomedical Engineering and end up designing those cool machines that are used in hospitals. My TFG consists on building an ultrasound machine, which I'm kinda managing to do. Also, anyway, gotta stay for the revolution, right? ;)

  • Theoretically current RISCV boards are not fully open since the processor itself is not. That might or might not matter to you, but you can always use an FPGA board. Anyway, hmu for anything, it's nice to help with projects as a community :)

  • Hi fellow Spanish healthcare trainee!

  • Yeah, anyone that has seen war actually wants to go on with it indefinitely rather than seek peace. /s

  • You can accuse anyone of anything and start a trial, that's how the justice system works.

  • Well, you're really damn right. But lately I've found it easier to just sidestep the whole "aggression" thing altogether than argue on that, where I would have most certainly hit a wall. So, "yeah, sure, scary Russkie man did the bad, now let's move on to the important stuff". I've come to like doing it like this more.

  • Yeah, I know. But the word "aggression" is (intentionally, hats off to US propaganda) vague; the user I was responding to interpreted it as "launching an attack into a territory generally recognized as foreign", so I'm going with that definition. I generally do not argue on terminology, since it's not practical to do so. But thanks for the heads up!

  • I agree to your comment. A democratic country can easily be strong against enemies. But I'd like to point that the current confrontation (Cod War, if you wish) is in such a delicate state and happening on so many fronts that even a blink, a bad move, a seemingly innocent regime change in Russia has a good chance to bring about its defeat. And surely the US is trying to promote such change, under every possible pretext. The US is playing all cards at the same time, resorting to military means, monetary policy, espionage, propaganda, censorship, foreign coups... all widely confirmed. So whatever our view on Mr. Putler, we must let him do his thing for now, worry about him later. Just think that every country will be so weakened after this new Cold War that toppling them will be easy ;)

  • My point is simply pragmatic. I'm proposing a strategy that's actually viable: doing whatever little we can to avoid the destruction of Russia so the world eventually fights into a multipolar, unstable state wherein we can actually bring about change by force. What you propose is destabilizing Russia, letting it fall, then somehow banishing curruption and authoritarianism from the all-encompassing, paranoid, armed-to-the-teeth, almost Orwellian US via a strategy comparable to resorting to the power of friendship.

  • So, they were... trolling? Spreading their pro-China... opinions? Which constitutes a... "secret police station"? (???)

  • NATO could have entered the war in Ukraine at any time

    And it has. They are spending on this war as much as they did on Afghanistan. They are sending intel and commands directly to Ukrainian officials. And not just weapons and information; according to the recently leaked papers, there are NATO troops on the field too. They are fighting the war in all senses except legally, and, by extension, in the PR sense.

    this war -like any war- doesn’t make sense

    Every war makes sense. Countries start wars when that's what benefits them the most. And countries carefully plan and set up future wars.

    Why so?

    There are two sides in this global-scale hybrid war. Finland and other countries have joined what they believe to be the winning side, or at least the side whose victory would be more beneficial to their political interests. Other countries are siding with Russia and China. Countries joining an alliance voluntarily doesn't mean the alliance isn't a threat to the other side. NATO has gradually turned itself into an alliance with the power to defeat Russia.

    then we would “magically become democratic”

    No, nobody would. The US has just passed the RESTRICT Act, which imposes stronger restrictions than even China has. If you suggest that your country should just let the authoritarian guard down and allow every foreign psy-ops to have a meaningful effect on it, they'll just laugh at you or you'll be killed by thugs in an unfortunate and unrelated turn of events.

    The only way to get what we want is to wait until the existing superpowers have fought each other into an unstable state, then seize power by violence. Anything else is just wishful thinking to feel better about something you don't actually ever expect to change.

  • What does that mean?

    NATO will act according to their interests. If they can defeat an enemy, they will do so. If your point is that the US will simply point all its weapons towards Russia and China and then simply smile and let them peacefully develop to overtake the US in every aspect as they are doing, you're wrong.

    Who started the aggression in Ukraine?

    Russia did. But I don't think they should just sit back and watch as the US prepares to deal a lethal blow to them. The US has set up bases all around Russia, formed military alliances with countries near its border. The US has also promoted coups in many post-Soviet states to make their governments US-affine. Even after the 2014 pro-US coup in Ukraine, Ukrainian citizens voted for the seemingly pro-Russian Zelensky, who had promised to normalize relations with Russia and embrace the Russian culture and language in the Donbas region, and were fooled by what turned out to be a new US puppet regime and continued war against the Donbas. Even US officials admit they were planning for the war, just that they didn't think Russia would strike first. At this point, who even launched the first missile in this particular development of the 2014 war is just a small technicality in a complex hybrid war that's been developing for years.

    Let’s hope for democracy everywhere.

    If two authoritarian behemoths are fighting to death as they are, randomly biting and scolding both in hopes that they'll magically become democratic is a stupid strategy. At best, you will achieve nothing. At worst, one of them will weaponize your innocence against the other, which is quite the case.