Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)P
Posts
4
Comments
4009
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • I recognize the stigma that professional help can carry (especially with older generations). We were not raised with the idea that we didn't have every tool, knowledge, and ability to address every mental or emotional challenge that we might get faced with. This realization is what helped me.

    That being said, recently the topic of counseling came up in conversation on an unrelated situation, and she made it clear that she is not fond of the idea. If we find ourselves in a situation where we can’t communicate healthily, I will propose couples counseling.

    Perhaps use this line of thinking when talking to her: If there is a water leak occurring somewhere in your house and large puddles are randomly appearing on the floor, would you or your wife just start tearing into the wall or instead would you call a professional plumber that has the tools and experience to know how to address this situation? Why would we think with zero training each of use would be equal to a plumbing professional? We simply aren't. Its the same thing with mental health. While there are some issues we are capable of addressing on our own, there are simply some jobs that we're not equipped for and not calling a professional can lead to no fix, but amateur efforts to address it make the problem worse than it was to begin with.

  • There has to be enough motivation for them to get rid of bad cops before they become a problem, not after.

    I'm understand where you're going with this statement in spirit, but not in execution. An officer is only a problem after they have done harm to the public for which they serve. How then could a department get rid of a bad officer before this bad behavior presents itself?

  • I spiraled in my attempt to find the “right” answer, to the point that I did not stop to consider that there is no right answer.

    An extension on the idea here is that we frequently are searching for the "best" answer, when in fact what we're looking for is the "least worse" answer. As in, there are no good choices and from those you have to choose from and you're left with the choice that has the fewest negatives. I think this is an important distinction because if choosing "the best answer" still negatively affects some groups they will be resentful that others saw their loss as "the best answer". Instead if this is reframed as the "least worse" answer, its acknowledging that this choice causes some level of harm to them, but works to communicate it is the least amount of harm collectively to all groups and the apology that comes along with it.

    I need to take a step back and figure out how I can communicate with her in a way that does not burden her and let her know that I am here for her.

    I agree with you on this. Also consider she is feeling equally anxious about this situation (or others you have no idea about!) and that she too is holding back talking to you because she's trying to spare your feelings or protect you emotionally. I would recommend seeking a professional counselor for guidance as a path for both of you to have a way to communicate important ideas with one another yet still being able to be gentle in the delivery.

  • "Are you going to get vaccinated against the Vegas Virus or are you going to roll the dice?"

    "Blakloclovier vaccine against the Vegas Virus shows strong protection. Always bet on Blak"

    "Don't cash out early on life. Get vaccinated"

  • My suggestion (though I’m open to any idea that works) is fines/penalties/settlements for shit like this comes out of their retirement funds.

    My favorite reform approach is for law enforcement officers being required to carry professional insurance. Police are often referring to themselves as professionals. Let them carry insurance like doctors do for malpractice or professional engineers do.

    To ease the transition, I propose that the department cover the base insurance premiums for each officer. If an officer has a judgment against them that raises their insurance premiums, the officer is now responsible for paying for the overage out of their own pocket. If the officer continues to exhibit behavior that results in judgments against them, their premiums will continue to rise eventually to the point where the bad officer cannot afford the overage premiums and will then have to stop working as police because they are not carrying the required insurance. So bad officers will self select out.

    There's also another angle where the base premiums will likely be calculated based upon the entire department. If there is a badly behaved officer, this will raise the base rate of all officers too, so the department has a financial incentive to get rid of bad officers because they are too expensive.

  • I have nothing to offer you except my attention and my sympathy. I can clearly see you're struggling with immense challenges physically, emotionally, financially, and socially.

    The one thing I might be able to offer is: there is no objectively right choice that you just have to search for, and therefore not finding it is not a failure on your part.

    As much as we want to make "the right choices" in life, that exercise comes with the added complication of answering the question "the right choice for whom?". That itself is a very difficult question, because as you've pointed out, some of those are zero sum. For one person to win another might have to lose. What is fair? What is "right"? There are no absolute answers to these questions.

    However, be proud of what you and your wife have gone through so far. That took immense effort and sacrifice!

  • after decimating the indigenous americans that have been here more than 10k years.

    No argument on the truthfulness of your statement, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the premise of society enforcing the thought that the rich are rich because of god.

  • "Trainer uses the Sicilian Defense! Its very effective!"

  • I have never intentionally put words in your mouth. The best I can figure after rereading our entire thread is that you're jumping around on different points but giving no clues in the conversation you're doing that. As in, I'm responding to one of your points, but you're providing a rebuttal for a completely different point of your own.

    In this conversation I've been trying to restate what I'm seeing as your interpretation in an attempt to confirm we're communicating, but then I get another response indicating we're not communicating.

    There's two possibilities I see as to whats happening here:

    • your thesis and points are not logically consistent

    OR

    • we are simply not able to communicate effectively with one another today

    For the purposes of civility, I'm not going to make a judgment one which one these it is. I'll let you give your downvote button a rest and simply bow out talking more with you today. Maybe in the future we'll have better luck with one another.

  • I'm not looking for pedantry. I'm looking for clarity. You eluded to a specific action by robber barons in the 1900s. I'm looking for what that is because I'm seeing that idea predate them.

  • Robot automation has not lowered the quality of a Ford vehicle

    I never said that and the quality of a ford truck is irrelevant to the assembly worker who lost their job due to automation.

    You need to back up because you have gone down a tangent alone.

    I agree we're down a tangent, but I'm following the logic of your responses. This is a response to your original thesis: "AI robots can be utter shit". Then you introduced the ford example for automation, which isn't shit for assembly.

    Which point to you want to back up to that would change our conversation path?

    The notion that people won’t eat sawdust bread is demonstrably false with many historical examples proving you wrong.

    I'm glad you saw those. I specifically chose sawdust in my example because of those events in history. Those support what I'm talking about. When the adulteration of the food became bad enough, people stopped eating it.

    Your stipulation about zero flour is a moving goalpost and a strawman fyi

    My "zero flour" comment is a response to your original thesis where you said: "quality of service can drop indefinitely."

    It can't be indefinitely. There's a point where people will stop consuming it when it gets bad enough.

  • Early colonized America used slave labor by racist christians. Those racist christians said they were supposed to be rich because god made them that way. That predates the robber barons of the early 1900s.

  • And yet youtube is still the dominant video host.

    Youtube hasn't descended to being unusable yet.

    You’re missing the point entirely. If instead of luxuries you look through the lens of necessities perhaps you’ll see. Like replace cookies with bread and try tell me people will choose to starve first. Like obviously not.

    I think you're missing the point. If we substitute bread in the example I gave and they're putting sawdust in it, then yes people will not buy bread made with zero flour, but instead made with sawdust. Yes, people will stop buying bread in that situation because they would die anyway because the bread doesn't produce nutritional value.

    Ask a ford employee 30 years ago about robot automation. Like this is not a new thing in the 2020s. The rich have a playbook for this.

    Now you're speaking against your original point. Robot automation has not lowered the quality of a Ford vehicle. If anything it has increased it. A robot can have assembly tolerances much tighter than a human. Where is the lowering of quality from a robot making the vehicle that your original thesis demands?

  • The short version is that the ultra wealthy were pissed about the New Deal, so they used fundamentalist Christianity to tie the idea of wealth to holy favor from Yahweh.

    That concept existed WAY before the United State did.

    The old idea was kings were rich because they were ordained to be kings by god. Questioning why the king was rich was questioning the word of god and punishable by death.

  • AI robots can be utter shit and they will still be leaps and bounds more efficient than the task specific automation that has been replacing human workers for decades.

    I disagree with this, and we already have live examples today that are good analogs. Youtube is being flooded with AI generated slop. AI generated scripts, read by AI generated voices, over top of AI generated images.

    I never seek these out, and actively avoid them when I can tell what they are before clicking on them. In that first 2 seconds of AI generated voice, I can tell this is slop and stop watching it seeking a human generated video instead.

    As long as the rich maintain their monopolies quality of service can drop indefinitely. Doesn’t matter if AI robots suck ass when no human employed company can compete and every other option is just as ass.

    It can't. At some point the quality of the product drops to a level it is no longer a product. Lets say we're in your theoretical dystopian future where the monopoly exists for cookies. There is no other place to buy cookies except from the monopoly. You posit that quality can drop indefinitely as there is zero alternative sources for cookies. So lets say the monopoly cookie brand was deciding to substitute some of the wheat flower with sawdust as a cost saving measure with the consequence being yet lower quality cookies. At a tiny fraction of sawdust you may notice it, but the sawdust cookie may still be better than no cookie. The monopoly continues to increase the sawdust content until the cookie contains zero wheat flour and is entirely substituted with sawdust. I believe even you would concede you would no longer buy the sawdust cookies at this point. Further, you would have stopped buying them earlier when the sawdust content became so high that the cookie was inedible to you even though it contained some wheat flour at that point.

    This same thing will apply to Youtube. If the only thing left to watch on youtube is AI slop because no human creators exist, then there is no point in watching youtube anymore.

    The point here, is that even with a monopoly on a product, as soon as the quality drops below a certain threshold (and this point is different for every consumer), the product stops being a product to them.

  • Not defending Musk, but the point of humanoid robots is to perform a job currently done by a human worker without modifying the process or tools. Dedicated robot arms are fantastic for factory work, but the jobs they do have to specifically be designed to be done by a robot arm.

    As an example, you can't put a robot arm at a human workspace and have it open a plastic bag, put an item inside it, and pick up a tape gun seal it with tape. For a robot arm to do that, the entire workspace, and extra robots would have to be added and programmed to accomplish the same task.

  • xAI must not have been getting enough investor interest and rather than admit it’s a stinker, he’s shackling spaceX with it.

    This is the same thing Musk did saddling Tesla (and Tesla public shareholders) with the debt of the failed company Solar City run by his cousin.

  • Full disclosure, I'm not a scientist just a person on the internet, but here is my understanding.

    The confusion starts with our use of units which are otherwise static and predictable in "close" cosmological terms, in this case:

    • the speed of light
    • a light year, a unit of measure of distance over which is light can travel in the time it takes Earth to orbit our sun one time.

    How do we measure a distant object and determine its distance? By measuring the light that is emitted by that object and seeing how much it has red-shifted (with the wavelength of that light being the underlying thing being measured) with an Earthbound observer as the relative point of measurement. A longer wavelength (into the red end of the spectrum) denotes the object traveling farther away from us. This last point is right in light with special relativity.

    However, what if there is another thing beyond special relativity's effects also increasing the wavelength of the measured light. Our measurement becomes polluted by this other variable. That other variable is the expansion of the universe further lengthening the wavelength of light. Essentially the distance the light is traveling is being extended causing the additional special relativity effects to our sample. So since our measurement of distance is based upon the behavior of light traveling over a distance, and we derive that distance from the parameters of the measured light, we can (and must) subtract out the speed of light from a measurement and the difference we see allows us to measure the expansion of the universe by itself.

    Its a spacetime effect. Take a partially inflated balloon. Draw a circle on it. Draw a line across the diameter of the circle. The diameter line represents the speed of light from one edge of the circle to the other. Starting from one side of the circle, measure 90% of the diameter across and draw a dot. Go from the other side of the diameter and again measure 90% across from to the other side of the circle across the diameter. Now blow the balloon up to twice its previous partial size. Both dots are still at their relative 90% of the diameter. So the length of the diameter line you started with is actually the combined value of both the speed of line as well as the expansion of the balloon. The place where this example falls apart is that if you were to instantly transport (impossible in our understanding of the laws of the universe) to that balloon light year section of space, you would not see the effects of the expansion of the universe. It would look like the original partially inflated balloon you stated with.

  • CBS News contributor

    This surprised me that back 5 to 20 years ago a CBS new contributor was involved with Epstein. This is especially surprising to me because I'd never heard of this doctor before and I used to watch a lot of CBS news.

    His recent appointment as a CBS contributor

    ...oh after the MAGA capture of CBS. That tracks. Carry on. No wonder I've never heard of him. I stopped watching/trusting CBS after the MAGA capture.

  • Superbowl @lemmy.world

    Video: When A Barn Owl And Great Horned Owl Meet

  • RetroGaming @lemmy.world

    How Many Phones Sport a 5 and 1/4 Diskette Drive? This One.

    hackaday.com /2025/09/27/how-many-phones-sport-a-5-and-1-4-diskette-drive-this-one/
  • Commodore 64 @lemmy.world

    C64 spotted at Universal Studios Orlando

  • TenForward: Where Every Vulcan Knows Your Name @lemmy.world

    Chief O'Brien has the most wholesome Holosuite programs