Because religion evolved to thrive in us.

It’s like a parasite, and our mind is the host. It competes with other mind-parasites like other religions, or even scientific ideas. They compete for explanatory niches, for feeling relevant and important, and maybe most of all for attention.

Religions evolved traits which support their survival. Because all the other variants which didn’t have these beneficial traits went extinct.

Like religions who have the idea of being super-important, and that it’s necessary to spread your belief to others, are ‘somehow’ more spread out than religions who don’t convey that need.

This thread is a nice collection of traits and techniques which religions have collected to support their survival.

This perspective is based on what Dawkins called memetics. It’s funny that this idea is reciprocally just another mind-parasite, which attempted to replicate in this comment.

I know multiple people that think the best thing to do right now is just accept the losses, get a peace deal, and stop the violence.

The problem with this idea is Russia’s track record of broken deals (like accepting Ukraine’s territorial integrity, then invading) and aggressive ambitions (greetings to our Baltic allies). Chances are the last two points are nothing but false hopes and all that remains is “accept the losses”, while Russia prepares to invade the next neighbor. All the good points are also the untrustworthy points. We kind of tried this idea when they took Crimea, and see where it got us.

If we omit all the steps which aren’t key, we likely fail at key steps. Some steps are important support.

Giving the people a way to show themselves what their spirit is is important to encourage further steps.

In that sense, I do think keeping up morale was important in freeing France.

Thank you. I had this in mind as a reason, or maybe more as a hope.

before these protests I thought this country was slowly drifting into the far right, like so many other European countries. Now I know that a million people are willing to go on he streets. Hell, even in my right wing city in Saxony ten thousand people went to the protests

This is uplifting news! Thanks for sharing.

Good job, you burned that strawman to the ground  e a s i l y.

Seriously though, no one believes this would solve everything. And it can still be one thing worth doing for other, smaller reasons.

But since you still have a very obvious point, why don’t you skip to the interesting part; how to do better? What’s your approach?

The last two AfD supporters with whom I spoke didn’t seem to be aware of all this (granted, I wasn’t, excellent post there). They also prefer to believe that not all of AfD is that bad and focus on the people who they like.

If you’re asking about non-AfD supporters … just note that roughly half of Germany votes CDU or AfD. Many actually like the rightwing extremists for one “reason” or another. Because, not despite.

Just a guess: to prevent bots from scraping the full content?

Then null will be returned, as the value of b.

That’s kind of two of my main points:

1. Treat your volunteers well, or why should they continue volunteering?
2. Kernel maintainers have plenty of other opportunities.

I don’t know if they are volunteering or being paid. The other person said they are being paid.

Either way, no one deserves being talked down to like that, even if they made a mistake. It’s a matter of respect and self-respect. And as a skilled person like a kernel developer, it should be trivially easy to find other work in a more appropriate environment.

That being said, maybe I’m missing something. Torvalds has been known to be like that for a long time (although that seems to be over now). And still, Linux has been developed over decades. So apparently, skilled people flocked around Torvalds, or maybe rather his project. Not entirely sure why, but I’m taking it as a hint I might be missing something.

I would not work with or even for someone with such an attitude, not even for money. Ok, do it yourself, bye. Got better places to be.

False dichotomy.

I feel like I’m pretending to know what I’m doing.

I guess that explains the observation. As kids, we’re fooled by the pretenders. So we grow up with this expectation.

And this wasn’t just any but fuck man. It was the “perfect but fuck man I love”!

Yes, I feel you.

And yes, that’s how it is. It’s an insanely complex industry if you really want to understand how things work.

Which you don’t need to get things done.

Which you still can if you really want, if you’re willing to invest the time and energy to study it thoroughly for many years if not decades.

But even then, chances are you’ll be touching libraries, concepts or technologies which you did not study in-depth yet. I think you need to be both aware and tolerant of limited knowledge, and willing to learn continuously.

For those who don’t know what Firefish is: https://joinfediverse.wiki/What_is_Firefish%3F

Right, thanks for the corrections.

In case of GAN, it’s stupidly simple why AI detection does not take off. It can only be half a cycle ahead (or behind), at any time.

Better AI detectors train better AI generators. So while technically for a brief moment in time the advantage exists, the gap is immediately closed again by the other side; they train in tandem.

This does not tell us anything about non-GAN though, I think. And most AI is not GAN, right?

As with other AI-enhanced jobs, that probably still means less jobs in the long run.

Now one artist can make more art in the same time, or produce different styles which previously had required different artists.

And this is why AI detector software is probably impossible.

What exactly is “this”?

Just about everything we make computers do is something we’re also capable of; slower, yes, and probably less accurately or with some other downside, but we can do it. We at least know how.

There are things computers can do better than humans, like memorizing, or precision (also both combined). For all the rest, while I agree in theory we could be on par, in practice it matters a lot that things happen in reality. There often is only a finite window to analyze and react and if you’re slower, it’s as good as if you knew nothing. Being good / being able to do something often means doing it in time.

We can’t program software or train neutral networks to do something that we have no idea how to do.

Machine learning does that. We don’t know how all these layers and neurons work, we could not build the network from scratch. We cannot engineer/build/create the correct weights, but we can approach them in training.

Also look at Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs). The adversarial part is literally to train a network to detect bad AI generated output, and tweak the generative part based on that error to produce better output, rinse and repeat. Note this by definition includes a (specific) AI detector software, it requires it to work.

Right? A self-assessed skill which is never tested is a funny thing anyways. It boils down to “I believe I’m good at it because I believe my belief is correct”. Which in itself is shady, but then there are also incentives that people rather believe to be good, and those who don’t probably rather don’t speak up that much. Personally, I believe people lack the competence to make statements like these with any significant meaning.

AFAIK it was posted to asklemmy without posing a question, so removing the post is fair play.

We can speculate if they gladly removed the post, but let’s not hype it for more than it is. Posts should adhere to community rules.