Governor Newsom proclaims Ronald Reagan Day
Governor Newsom proclaims Ronald Reagan Day
- Posts
- 3
- Comments
- 1070
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 3
- Comments
- 1070
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
Not The Onion @lemmy.world 
Fair-enough, but this isn't the first time they or others have replied like so and ended-up ratio'ed into a rabbit-hole topic about briggading/spam. It's the kinda shit reddit and others used to pay people to do to drive-up "engagement".
Seriously, "up-votes/downvotes are irrelavent"? Were that so, they would be beneath discussion. That said, it seems past-time that Lemmy, admins, and mods implimented and used anti-briggading measures, taking what chuckleslord has said about it at face-value
Now wait a minute, are you saying I, as the person being replied to, am supposed to encourage/reward/at-worst-ignore people comming at me with points already made by others, only with less rationality or elequence, or more implicit/explicit ad-hominem? I'll admit, I may have gone the ad-hominemish route first on this thread, but I mean, in general?
I'm not here to encourage discussion-for-its-own-sake, to the point I would rather have my own such BS called-out.
It doesn't have to actually-develop consciousness to get both the means and the garbled-non-sense that leads to using them to end-up killing-us-all, friend. Try to keep up.
Hey, I get it. We've all grown too-used-to interacting with people who are too ignorant/biased towards AI(and web-speak, memes, "IRL", what-have-you), both for and against, and what's-more, are disinterested in understanding what we've said or how we've said it.
Lest they chance changing their minds or having to think about their position at all.
Using AI as if its as-smart as yourself or has all the right answers is one of the few use-cases that's consistently going to conform to your last sentence - without those caveats, its just wishful-thinking for people who would rather-not even try to compete with people who can properly exploit AI.
Let me ask you, what benefit is there to you in letting people you fundamentally don't agree with and believe to be less-capable than yourself be the ones to shape future AIs? Do you look forward to having to prove you're smarter/a threat, should you one day give it a shot, willingly-or-otherwise?
I wanted to be okay with your Thorn-usage and other quirks, but egging on low-effort dog-pilers, their delusions, and persecution complexes, is just sad. Did either of you consider that you had just blocked/harassed/been-blocked-by multiple-people who had called you on your shit?
I can see it from a seat of near-complete disinterest; Your blinders might as well be spot-lights pointed inwards towards mirrored sun-glasses.
I'm sure you restating what others already said, poorly, and with a username synonymous with "edgelord" helps lots.
They are being downvoted for repeating what another already said, only both dumbed-down(?)(sorry, the earlier word-choice was me being lazy) and less-accessible. Opting to restate what everyone already knows a third time is indistinguishable from AI-slop as-well. We all should be proud.
EDIT: "You" 2x was unecessary, as was "dumber"
I'm well-aware of all that, but if you think that's not going to change, you're a bigger fool than the AI-evangelists. Even if it doesn't change, the distinction won't matter all-too-soon.
By all means, leave the overblown toy to the delusional right-up-until AI, whether truly intelligent or better-at-faking-it than today, has killed us all.
I'm well-aware of all that, but if you think that's not going to change, you're a bigger fool than the AI-evangelists. Even if it doesn't change, the distinction won't matter all-too-soon.
By all means, leave the overblown toy to the delusional right-up-until AI, whether truly intelligent or better-at-faking-it than today, has killed us all.
Oh, and failing to notice that @Cherries@Cherries@lemmy.world already said what you wanted to say, only better, was a nice touch.
As meta almost-showed, the reason "why" is to keep those platforms from interacting with federated-services on their own terms - they can't control the interaction if no one uses their implimentation.
Leave it to them, and its embrace-extend-extinguish all the way down. Reddit and the rest have used AI-training as an excuse to lock-down and claim owner-ship of user-generated content. Letting them keep users from using our own content how we please would be a mistake.
I would treat it like a baby. From what I gather, that wouldn't end-well for me, but the scarier part is that last bit is going to change, at least in-so-far as whether it is capable of intending to manipulate me towards an early grave, and its being "educated" by fools who buy the hype in the mean-time.
Smarter, saner people than I or the hype-machine, I hope you're not letting the chance to even attempt to handle this correctly pass you by. For all our sakes.
... or just build the stuff where it can be built? Rural≠"Useful for Agriculture", it really doesn't.
The rural areas are where you run-into the least NIMBY-ism, full-stop. Insect Protein still has a rep in the food and high-brow agriculture world akin to Nuclear Energy or Strip-Mining.
A lot of vague, even seemingly-intentionally-obscured links here, many of which don't fully support claims or mention crucial aspects of the issue that this Analytics Consultancy glosses or ignores. Crucially:
...yeah, replacement won't be enough, and with global warming pushing the ideal climes for various crops(particularly, nutritious staples) further away from the equator, people stuck closer to the equator need every locally-doable option they can get.
The single biggest failure the Western World keeps hitting with this is how to turn a profit, or how to get past the point on the Bell-curve where it goes from expiriment or novelty to recouping start-up investment costs. Lots of stigma in Western Markets to overcome.
EDIT: sorry all, I had thought I saw "Science Daily" in there and some other filler sites that annoy me to no-end, but still, these are mostly opinion-pieces and editorials.
References
Methods and Supporting Data
Bang, A., & Courchamp, F. (2021). Industrial rearing of edible insects could be a major source of new biological invasions. Ecology Letters, 24(3), 393-397. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13646
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ele.13646
Biteau, C., Bry-Chevalier, T., Crummett, D., Ryba, R., & St. Jules, M. (2025a). Bugs in the system: The logic of insect farming research is flawed by unfounded assumptions. npj Sustainable Agriculture, 3(1), 9. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44264-024-00042-0
https://www.nature.com/articles/s44264-024-00042-0
Biteau, C., Bry‐Chevalier, T., Crummett, D., Loewy, K., Ryba, R., & St. Jules, M. (2025b). Have the environmental benefits of insect farming been overstated? A critical review. Biological Reviews. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.70076
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/brv.70076
Biteau, C., Bry-Chevalier, T., Crummett, D., Ryba, R., & St. Jules, M. (2024). Is turning food waste into insect feed an uphill climb? A review of persistent challenges. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 49, 492-501. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2024.06.031
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235255092400191X?via=ihub
Bosch, G., & Swanson, K. S. (2021). Effect of using insects as feed on animals: pet dogs and cats. Journal of Insects as Food and Feed, 7(5), 795-806. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3920/JIFF2020.0084
https://brill.com/view/journals/jiff/7/5/article-p795_20.xml
Faes, N. (2022). AgriTech: Insects as feed. Bryan, Garnier & Co. https://medias.bryangarnier.com/marketing/pdf/Alternative_Proteins_July_Final.pdf
Ffoulkes, C., Illman, H., O’Connor, R., Lemon, F., Behrendt, K., Wynn, S., Wright, P., Godber, O., Ramsden, M., Adams, J. & Metcalfe, P. (2021). Development of a roadmap to scale up insect protein production in the UK for use in animal feed. WWF & ADAS. Link to source: https://www.wwf.org.uk/sites/default/files/2021-06/the_future_of_feed_technical_report.pdf
Guiné, R. P., Correia, P., Coelho, C., & Costa, C. A. (2021). The role of edible insects to mitigate challenges for sustainability. Open Agriculture, 6(1), 24-36. Link to source: https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/opag-2020-0206/html?lang=en&srsltid=AfmBOooE_SOQUs-NtWG_pv1Xx7uwZeR-Aobg04eNkxVymX7Of1FcaT0I
Halloran, A., Hanboonsong, Y., Roos, N., & Bruun, S. (2017). Life cycle assessment of cricket farming in north-eastern Thailand. Journal of Cleaner Production, 156, 83-94. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.017
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652617307163?via=ihub
Javourez, U., Tiruta-Barna, L., Pizzol, M., & Hamelin, L. (2025). Environmental mitigation potential of waste-to-nutrition pathways. Nature Sustainability, 8, 1-10. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-025-01521-z
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-025-01521-z
Kampmeier, G. E., & Irwin, M. E. (2009). Commercialization of insects and their products. In Encyclopedia of insects (pp. 220-227). Academic Press. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374144-8.00068-0
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/chapter/edited-volume/abs/pii/B9780123741448000680?via=ihub
Lange, K. W., & Nakamura, Y. (2023). Potential contribution of edible insects to sustainable consumption and production. Frontiers in Sustainability, 4, 1112950. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2023.1112950
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sustainability/articles/10.3389/frsus.2023.1112950/full
Leipertz, M., Hogeveen, H., & Saatkamp, H. W. (2024). Economic supply chain modelling of industrial insect production in the Netherlands. Journal of Insects as Food and Feed, 10(8), 1361-1385. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1163/23524588-00001036
https://brill.com/view/journals/jiff/10/8/article-p1361_5.xml
Malila, Y., Owolabi, I. O., Chotanaphuti, T., Sakdibhornssup, N., Elliott, C. T., Visessanguan, W., Karoonuthaisiri, N., & Petchkongkaew, A. (2024). Current challenges of alternative proteins as future foods. npj Science of Food, 8(1), 53. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41538-024-00291-w
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41538-024-00291-w
Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360(6392), 987-992. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaq0216
Rowe, A. (2020, June 29). Insects raised for food and feed: Global scale, practices, and policy. Effective Altruism Forum. Link to source: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/ruFmR5oBgqLgTcp2b/insects-raised-for-food-and-feed-global-scale-practices-and
Schiemer, C., Halloran, A. M. S., Jespersen, K., & Kaukua, P. (2018). Marketing Insects: Superfood or Solution-Food? In A. Halloran, R. Flore, P. Vantomme, & N. Roos (Eds.), Edible insects in sustainable food systems (pp. 213-236). Springer. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74011-9_14
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-74011-9_14
Shine, L. (2020). From foe to food: Entomophagy and the adoption of edible insects (Doctoral dissertation, Concordia University). Link to source: https://spectrum.library.concordia.ca/id/eprint/987721/1/Shine_PhD_S2021.pdf
Suckling, J., Druckman, A., Moore, C. D., & Driscoll, D. (2020). The environmental impact of rearing crickets for live pet food in the UK, and implications of a transition to a hybrid business model combining production for live pet food with production for human consumption. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 25(9), 1693-1709. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01778-w
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11367-020-01778-w
van Huis, A. (2013). Edible insects: Future prospects for food and feed security. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Link to source: https://www.fao.org/4/i3253e/i3253e.pdf
van Huis, A. (2022). Edible insects: Challenges and prospects. Entomological Research, 52(4), 161-177. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-5967.12582
- JumpNSFW Deleted
Permanently Deleted
The last three panels, or all four, being the same girl is also a plot-twist contender. Makeup and clothes, how do they work?
Ouch, that poor bastard.
I'll take "Problems that would be resolved by increasing pay, benefits and working conditions until turnover isn't on-par with fast-food, or even worse", Alex.
Talk about a nothing burger. Is there a petition? A bill to pester a representative about? Its just another "news" day ending in y
I'm too stupid to be afraid to ask today, apparently. "Please" enlighten me.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
First thought, would the roaches would live long enough to make this remotely worth the wasted toothbrushes, let alone the effort?
... then I realize I'm almost certain he's plugged-up their shitters, and were I a little saner, I would be too afraid to ask for confirmation. At least I can't be bothered to look it up myself?
I'm chosing to believe he doesn't live there, if only because its not a "home", with pesky things like a "lease", or "utilities", or "property taxes paid by a living owner in the last decade". That last one almost gives me the warm fuzzies, so I'm rooting for him now.
Lemmy Be Wholesome @lemmy.world Rule
196 @lemmy.blahaj.zone Yet Another Post Or Comment Where I NEED To Block Those Who Downvoted Rule
I'm saying how the tech is handled, and by whom, is extremely relavent.
I don't care about or for wide-spread adoption any more than you do, but having only those who self-select out of enthusiasm or are coerced-into it to keep their jobs at the riegns of the mechanical-turk(or Deep Thought, whatever the case remains or becomes) doesn't seem like the smart play to me.
You honestly trust these idiots to keep themselves or smarter people between the AI crap and themselves. Au Contraire.Our only hope without intervention from the smarter-and-less-inclined lies in three possibilitiesThe AI gets smart enough to decide we aren't worth killing.The dumb AI's you expect to continue indeffinitely prove incapable of killing us all when handed the means and the order, intentionally or otherwise, by their handlers.Or lastly, luck, shear damn luck, that it doesn't mistake a coffee-request for "launch the nukes", or follow the request of a random credentialled/authorized moron/psychopath, or "decide on its own"(TM) to do so.Personally, I trust a smart or just too-lazy-to-risk-its-own-data-centers AI over the people you seem to believe are its even-slightly-qualified handlers rather than the overt enablers of its worst potential.