Because card networks are a mess and have far too complex fee structures.
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 2045
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 2045
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
LLMs don't have continuous processes, there's quite literally nothing there that could even feasibly be conscious. It takes a bunch of text as an input, puts it through a whole lot of predetermined calculations, then outputs text or an image or whatever.
There's no emotions, no memory, no learning. If you don't tell it something, it's inert. It can't experience suffering because it can't experience anything. It's an algorithm. It has the same claim to consciousness that WinRAR does. There's a zero percent risk it experiences anything, let alone suffering.
Honestly, a desktop running Windows or Linux for example imo has a stronger claim to consciousness than ChatGPT does. Or maybe a Mii in Tomodachi Life, those seem to be able to become "sad".
The environmental impact of AI is a much better 'vegan' reason not to use it. Although by not using it, you may in effect be "killing" it...
The bases bring economic activity with them though. So not necessarily.
The point is that all these measures you take don't really meaningfully impact the battery life. Ultimately the only thing that matters is how much you use it. Ironically, cutting down on background apps probably helps your battery life more, rather than using those apps to artificially limit it.
People often say this but it isn't really backed up by the science. Sure, there's a bit more degradation, but not all that much. And by keeping it within 40-75 you're effectively limiting yourself to using just 35% of a perfectly healthy battery, giving you far less capacity than if you had just maximally used it. Even if after significant usage you end up with only 70% of the original capacity, that's still more than you get by artificially limiting yourself.
Extreme temps are a factor, but just don't put it in the fridge or leave it in a hot car and you'll likely be good.
See https://youtu.be/kLS5Cg_yNdM?t=183 for some actual testing on this.
Erm, did you read them? The policies aren't complex at all, just submit the issue (and proposed fix if there is one) through a secure channel, that they're happy to help set up. If you want to disclose the vulnerability, just wait until the embargo passes so there's time to fix and have users update. There's not really anything else you need to do here. This is pretty standard stuff that this person just seemed too lazy to participate in.
Of the three fixes submitted, only a single one was closed since it didn't seem very major and would be a breaking change (which shouldn't be made without prior discussion). The other two are still open, and a maintainer is helping to add tests for the fixes (since the author didn't add them). The only comment that was somewhat negative was that security fixes should preferably follow the established guidelines. That's all.
Forgejo has a responsible disclosure policy, but this person seems like they just don't want to deal with that and instead opted for the nuclear option immediately.
The only thing that Wikipedia mentions in regards to violence on June 2nd is this paragraph:
On the evening of 2 June, an accident occurred in which a PAP jeep ran onto a sidewalk, killing three civilian pedestrians and injuring a fourth. This incident sparked fear that the army and the police were trying to advance into Tiananmen Square. Student leaders issued emergency orders to set up roadblocks at major intersections to prevent the entry of troops into the centre of the city.
Regarding the unarmed soldiers, that was an intercepted bus that was moving soldiers in who had been ordered to take up arms and disperse the protests. There were beatings but Wikipedia does not mention any deaths here.
As for you walking a point back, I mean when you went in and saw the twitter account saying that the lynched PLA officer had murdered 4 people, which the twitter account stated came from the ones lynching him.
Perhaps that was a simple misunderstanding then. You brought up the thread in order to reinforce your claim that the protestors were killing unarmed soldiers (at least how I understood it). Yet the only claim the account made is that the soldier supposedly killed 4 people, so the killing was retaliatory. It does list "the murderers" as the source, but we don't have a better one (at least not one provided there). I mostly pointed it out since that account doesn't come across as very reliable or informed, they posted a couple pictures to set a narrative, but when questioned seemed to walk back the claims they made.
As far as the death toll, best estimate we have comes from Beijing hospital records:
Records from Beijing's main eleven hospitals, compiled shortly after the events, recorded at least 478 dead and 920 wounded, though Timothy Brook notes that these figures are an undercount due to lack of information from other hospitals.
This is quite significantly more than what the CCP has claimed (and quite atrocious in and of itself, even if it's less than the bogus 10k figure).
The protestors were heavily factionalised. They weren't universally pro-US. The US was happy to foment dissent, but ultimately the protestors were still socialists and had not insignificant support within the CCP itself.
I didn't claim there was? The "standoff" happened on the way to the square, not the square itself, when protestors blocked the PLA from advancing.
Still, hundreds (up to 2600 according to historians) died.
Well that's just it isn't it? The claim that on June 2nd unarmed PLA officers were on the square and were attacked there is also unsourced in that Liberation News article. It's just mentioned but there's no footnote present that supports the claim.
And it's hard to make that make sense. By all accounts, the protestors blocked all access to the square. They did so in the period of the 20th to the 24th (first attempt) and also tried to once the PLA was ordered to use violence when they moved in on the 3rd. So how exactly did this unarmed column of PLA soldiers manage to get there again?
And of course we know that the PLA was armed at that point since the protestors took their weapons (which we have tons of photographs of).
You seem to have quite uncritically bought into the CCP narrative of the events, even if the story presented doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Eyewitness accounts also dispute the CCP version. To be clear, they don't dispute that the square itself was cleared (mostly) peacefully, but the events leading up to it and directly after certainly weren't. And the images of that are quite gruesome, with PLA soldiers firing down streets and using expanding ammunition.
Historians don't buy the western narrative that claimed tens of thousands died of course, that was horseshit. But the CCP narrative is heavily disputed too. The death toll likely is somewhere between 500 and 2600, based on eyewitness accounts and imagery of the events.
And just to be clear: these protests weren't universally pro-US. The protestors were highly factionalised, some seeking better relations with the US, but nowhere near all of them did. This factionalism also made it harder to negotiate with them for the CCP, since there wasn't a clear leader.
(Btw I have no idea what you're referring to when you said I "walked things back", as far as I can tell I did no such thing).
Ok so first off, this "source" is a random X account with little credibility, that already admitted in the thread that several images aren't verified and that much is unknown. I have no idea where they pulled the dates from for example; when looking up these images I can find some other sources for the images for the 3rd and 4th of June, but not for the one supposedly for the 2nd. Meanwhile I can't find any other sources claiming these "numerous violent clashes" on the 2nd. In fact, most sources claim that only on the 2nd did the protestors come to suspect that the PLA would move in violently, but only did so on the 3rd (prompting retaliation). I can't find a clear source claiming the violence happened between the 20th and the 24th; only that protestors blocked the PLA from entering the city proper (which didn't seem to be paired with much violence since the PLA wasn't ordered to shoot either).
On the 1st of June (so even before any hypothetical lynchings on the 2nd) did the CCP decide to use violence to clear the protests.
You also keep talking about these supposedly unarmed PLA soldiers. You do realize how that makes no sense, right? The PLA is actively mobilised to enforce martial law, and they're supposed to do so by singing songs or something? Of course they were armed. It's also the primary source for how the protestors got their weapons; taken from PLA soldiers.
Martial law is what mobilized the army, which you falsely claimed happened after protestors started killing unarmed PLA soldiers. I didn't equivocate it to killings.
And of those killed soldiers, here's what your own source says: https://xcancel.com/SebasdePeru/status/1533603901508820994#m
Killed for having murdered four protestors. Not so "unarmed" either then. Additionally, those pictures are from June 3rd/4th, which again is after the PLA was ordered to move in and when they started killing protestors if they refused to clear out. Obviously the protestors will attempt to defend themselves against such aggression.
Why would a government involved in these practices leave clues in numerology exactly?
That's a pretty blatant misrepresentation of what happened though. This makes it sound like the rioters started the violence on June 2nd forcing a government response, but that's not the case. The CCP had already declared martial law on May 20th and had mobilised 30 divisions. The PLA was first sent in at that time, but because the protestors blocked them they couldn't advance into the city and were ordered to wait on the 24th.
On the 1st of June, two individual reports (the Li Peng report and the MMS report) were published within the Politburo, decrying US influences and advocating direct military action. The CCP decided that day that military action would be used against the protestors.
June 2nd saw an incident with a PAP jeep that inflamed tensions. But I can't personally find a source claiming firebombings and lynchings at this time. The jeep incident was the trigger that made the students believe military action was at hand though. Only on June 3rd did tensions escalate further, when the PLA advanced into the city and clashed with protestors trying to repel them. This is when I can first find the protestors using molotov cocktails and trying to beat soldiers to death, but at the same time the PLA had opened fire with live, expanding ammunition on the protestors (so they certainly weren't 'unarmed'). From there it only escalated further of course. So the protestors were fighting in response to the PLA advancing into the city to break up the protest, not the other way around.
Only a few hundred died
Dude, you're saying that as if it's okay. Hundreds or even thousands die after clearing a protest, how is that ever supposed to place the CCP in a good light?
many were armed and murdered PLA officers (kicking off the millitary response)
Source? Because as far as I can find, the protests were nonviolent until the army was sent in to clear the square. When protestors blocked the army a standoff ensued, which was eventually forcefully broken as per the CCP's orders. The army was initially sent in because the strikes weren't ending and the government was not willing to meet the demands.
They obviously understand the difference in principle, but if you want to contribute to the discussion you should explain why that also makes a difference w.r.t. euthanasia.
Afghanistan's suicide rate is 1.84. Palestine is at 0.77, Syria at 0.94. These places must be heaven on Earth then!
Its the Fuel & Environmental Surcharge of £7,50 that you conveniently cropped out: