Average. It’s just an average. I haven’t verified whether the number is accurate (and often it’s probably debatable what qualifies as an empire and at what point it fell) but some empires lasting way longer does nothing to disprove 250 years being the average lifespan.
The second part of what you said is still entirely correct of course, that number has no real predictive capabilities for the collapse of the USA.
Yes, my point was that the degree of that just differs. People that truly don’t mask at all are usually insufferable, autistic or not. Autistic people however often need to suppress most of their entire personalities. For example many people will react to you negatively for not making eye contact when talking, which for most autistic people is not something that comes naturally. They will also interpret things into your words based on facial expressions. When I’m talking to someone and they can see my face I have to constantly consider where to look (can’t just stare them into the eyes either) and what to do with my facial muscles (which still doesn’t guarantee I’m doing the right thing for the other person to understand my actual feelings). From everything I’ve read, neurotypical people don’t have that issue. (And this is the masking we mran that can destroy you and feel like you lose your real personality if you never get lucky enough to find people you can be more relaxed around - especially when in school it mostly just means being bullied)
And then there are sensory issues (thankfully I mainly struggle with scents and some textures, which are overall not an issue that often, but many struggle with noise) which multiply all the annoyance that anyone has from loud noises, bad smells or whatever tenfold. And you also get annoyed at a far lower threshhold that neurotypical brains just filter out automatically.
The masking pressure autistic people have to deal is just more constant and more consistent, but of course everyone has their own shit to deal with.
The difference in severity is literally why masking in autistic people is a symptom and something that often negatively affects us, while for non-autistic people it’s mostly kinda whatever. It’s totally possible to not be autistic and heavily mask to the point where it’s negatively affecting you too, but when you’re autistic that’s the norm and you’re the lucky one if you never experienced it.
Then they can accept that I won’t do whatever thing they want me to do, because I don’t exist to serve them?
Glad I now have friends that are entirely in agreement that waiting is pointless.
I would highly disagree it signifying you as anything special, it’s a random ass social norm that serves no real purpose. But yes as I’ve said I’m well aware how it makes some ppl feel so I wait when eating with anyone I don’t know well. And sure it’s not hard now, which is the part where I mentioned this kind of thing mostly happened when I was a kid.
Honestly that reaction is just proving my point lol
Yeah, these opinion polls really should be more taken as a desire to move closer (as the article says). I doubt the people voting actually know everything that joining the EU would entail, but it’s still valid as a general “getting closer to the EU”.
Usually when it’s things that are “socially expected” but don’t make sense to me in that moment. Like being asked to wait with eating food until everyone has some (still don’t really get it, but “it’s a social norm and people will feel bad” is sufficient for adult me since it’s really nbd. As a kid no one even explained that far though, just that it’a a thing you do because you do.).
In general as an adult its been pretty rare since I’ve learned it’s not worth the effort (and whatever if it makes people happy then cool), and if I really don’t wanna do something I consider pointless (like wearing a suit - which I’d first have to buy - to a wedding in 30° heat as someone who is already very uncomfortable in shorts and t shirt in 22°) people are more likely to respect it because they can’t really force me anymore.
I do think the more common one (that still happens a bunch) is when providing the why, or more generally when providing extra information. It seems to me people often assume I’m overly criticizing when I do that. Like “can you add this thing to the sheet I think it’d be helpful when <3 sentences of the context in which I think it’s good to have>” tends to get worse reactions than “can you add this thing to the sheet I think it’d be helpful”.
So same as the food thing, maybe it’s more about wanting far more detailed explanations than about wanting one at all. But to me the less detailed one often doesn’t feel like a real explanation, moreso a justification.
Adhd in particular is a very “everyone can relate, only people with adhd have their lives crippled by it” thing. To some degree this applies to many mental disorders (e.g. everyone has some anxiety).
The need to know why is clearly not a normal thing or I wouldnt have had the frequent experience of people getting mad at me for demanding the why or, which is still utterly confusing to me, for explaining the why when asking someone to do something.
Yeah, these days when I read anything about antisemitic crime I always have to check if it’a actually people being racist or if someone just said israel bad. And of course israel doing their genocide is also driving up actual antisemitic crimes, because plenty of people think that israel=all jews, and understandably people are angry so they look for a “deserving” target. Which israel is also not helping with since their constant cries of antisemitism are implying exactly that.
And in reality it’s not even all israelis (not like most people living there these days chose it), and while far too many seem to support the genocide, they’re also under heavy propaganda.
The hypothesis kind of seems like selection bias to me. It seems more likely to me that in order for life to flourish as it has on earth, it has to (by pure chance) create a self regulating system, as otherwise it will eventually die off. What’s interesting (and I hadnt thought about prior to reading the wikipedia article) to me is that it seems possible that the current rapid temperature rise will lead to some organism(s) we don’t know or think about multiplying like crazy, and that has some form of cooling effect due to the organism’s emissions or w/e. Industrialized humans appear to be the most extreme (in the sense of rapid, persistent change) climate event to happen to this planet since it has had life, but at the very least we’re not the first time something fucked up the climate. Maybe we’ll just get lucky after all.
I was wondering which part about them makes them dangerous or fucked up, given they’re from australia. Thanks for providing the answer lol
I never even thought it was that deep (idk if in other countries ppl go over it in school or something, I first heard of it online) so I never really understood how people are relating it to any economic system. All it’s saying to me is that one bad actor can be enough to ruin something for everyone - as far as I’m concerned it’s just prisoners’ dilemma in a larger group. So we need some way of enforcing that, if a shared ressource is vulnerable to singular bad actors (which isn’t all of them, e.g. some people abusing welfare doesn’t suddenly skyrocket costs), it won’t be abused.
Edit: just realized I forgot whether tragedy of the commons was about some few fucking up the pasture for everyone, or everyone slightly overusing it. The latter is ofc a bit different, but “ah I can cheat the system a little, I need it after all” isn’t an uncommon sentiment. That one usually just means you need a bit of a buffer, though, because most people won’t grossly abuse something. (And of course, it’s still quite independent of economic systems - regional software pricing for example is ultimately a capitalist thing to sell more, and yet would fall under this as it’s usually possible to get these prices from other regions.)
Ehh, I do think people not voting are also responsible (or well, given what I know about US voting only the ones that really had the choice). They actively said “I don’t care if the racist shithead trying his best to emulate hitler will be president”. If you choose not to vote in a democracy you’re saying you’re fine with any outcome.
I don’t think the individual responsibilty there is huge by any means - I’ve also long held the opinion that the average person in nazi germany (and any similar country) only had a very small part of the blame if they simply did nothing, because people have all sorts of shit to deal with. But that doesn’t absolve them of all responsibility either. And at least in sane countries, voting is such a tiny bit of effort that not doing so is hard to excuse (but again, from what I know that’s not always the case in murica).
I’m only complaining about all the people that apparently regularly lost bottle caps. I don’t think that has happened to me ever… Not the end of the world and if it reduces litter I’ll deal with it but I curse these people every time one of the new caps is being annoying to screw back on.
So, english works like language has always worked, and french has lost the plot.
That said, complaining and refusing to use it yourself when people use language in a way that you think makes no sense is also part of that process. Feeling superior because of that is just ridiculous though.
Trumps following is quite cult-like, so there’s a chance. But I think it’s very likely that, even if they continue to idolize trump, the movement will be extremely split instead of rallying behind one person.
I’m honestly kinda surprised no one has tried again, take some inspiration from ukraine and it seems very hard for him to actually be safe from attempts.
Das mit der sichtbarkeit gehört eigentlich bundesweit als Bedingung für die Zulassung, Ausnahmen nur mit triftigem Grund (trecker z.B. können das bestimmt nicht, kp wies bei LKWs aussieht, und manchmal braucht man vielleicht wirklich offroad kapazität und ein trecker wäre etwas overkill).
I think there’s a blurry line here where you can easily train an LLM to just regurgitate the source material by overfitting, and at what point is it “transformative enough”? I think there’s little doubt that current flagship models usually are transformative enough, but that doesn’t apply to everything using the same technology - even though this case will be used as precedence for all of that.
There’s also another issue in that while safeguards are generally in place, without them llms would be very capable of quoting entire pages at least of popular books. And jailbreaking llms isn’t exactly unheard of. They also at least used to really like just verbatim repeating news articles on obscure topics.
What I’m mainly getting at is that LLMs can be transformative, but they also can plagiarize. Much like any human could. The question is then, if training LLMs on copyrighted data is allowed, will the company be held accountable when their LLM does plagiarize, the same way a person would be? Or would the better decision be to prohibit training on copyrighted data because actually transforming it meaningfully can not be guaranteed, and copyright holders actually finding these violations is very hard?
Though idk the case details, if the argument was purely focused on using the material to produce the model, rather than including the ultimate step of outputting text to anyone who asks, it was probably doomed to fail from the start and the decision makes perfect sense. And that doesn’t seem too unlikely to have happened because realizing this would require the lawyer making the case to actually understand what training an LLM does.
Similarly, I’m not 100% sure about this but afaik the + got commonly added before the IA, and I really dislike adding anything specific after a generalized “everyone who feels part of it” because doing that delegitimizes that the + actually means everyone. Though it also does suck if people feel excluded otherwise.
I’ve seen queer used to refer to the whole community though, but I think LGBT(+whichever addendums) has just been around for so long it’s most people’s goto, plus “queer” used to be a slur.
In my head it’s just “people not conforming to the majority group for sex or gender related reasons” and then I write whatever my brain decides is the term in that moment. Usually LGBTQ+.
Both can be true. The major US parties are both rotten to the core and as such the leadership of the democrats has much of the responsibility for this, but people not voting are still fascism enablers, albeit to a lesser degree than those voting for trump for non-fascism reasons.
Voting third party is one thing, it’s the only way outside of revolution you’re going to escape from the established two parties. Not voting only signals apathy and the only explicit statement is “I’m ok with whoever wins, including the raping racist hitler v2”.