Maths is objective, yes. But maths is an 'is', while morality is an 'ought'. And you can't get an ought from an is without subjective values. And while maths is objective, any individual's understanding of it may be inaccurate.
I just had to install the NVIDIA proprietor drivers from Software on Fedora and reboot and it worked no problem. NVIDIA also has better software support for ML, so you're fortunate to have an NVIDIA card.
If they exist independently of us, where could they originate? If they originate from patterns, evolutionary psychology, or a god, doesn't it make it subjective, just to that thing, whatever it is?
Edit: nvm, I saw you replied to my other comment where I said something similar :3
You are pointing out how the world is a terrible place with lots of suffering. I completely agree with you. But in each of these areas, the way things are now is still better than they've ever been. They've always been bad and horrible, and in most places and times, worse.
UBI is a bad idea because it reinforces and relies on the capitalist idea of money. We should make basic resources themselves free, like a supermarket you can walk into and take stuff without paying, rather than giving people points to buy stuff that costs points.
That's just untrue. People live in better conditions today, even just considering social acceptance, and not technology or medicine. Most societies are at least in theory democratic, where people get some input towards the ruler. There are legal protections against slavery, misogyny, homophobia, racism, transphobia, and anti monopolistic agencies that try to temper the worst parts of capitalism. Trade unions have successfully campaigned so that now people work less than they have since the start of the industrial revolution, in unprecedentedly better conditions.
Don't get me wrong, there's a long way to go, and many of these things exist a lot more in theory than practice. Child rights, in particularly, are woefully lacking.
However, claiming that the past, at any point, was better for the vast majority of people is the same nostalgic, rose tinted, incorrect thinking that MAGA (when was America 'great' the first time?) Republicans fall prey to.
So competing based on the barrel of a gun is better? You do have a point, that the majority's beliefs affect more a random person's beliefs if the random person is irrational than the merit of an idea, but surely enforcing the ideas of a minority - or even a majority - is even worse?
What would it mean that it's 'inherently' wrong, though? Where would the judgement come from? And if it does come from somewhere (eg evolutionary psychology, a god), doesn't that make it just the subjective morality of that thing?
Maths is objective, yes. But maths is an 'is', while morality is an 'ought'. And you can't get an ought from an is without subjective values. And while maths is objective, any individual's understanding of it may be inaccurate.