Absolutely wrong. The implied "incremental improvement" option is the party doing this genocide. If you want to stop these things you need to help organize opposition to it.

Also please show some respect and stop using passive voice or like there is no blame or perpetrator. This is a propaganda tool of the genociders. The genocided, their deaths just happen, per this propaganda. You're not meant to know where the JDAMs that bomb schools and hospitals come from. Don't ask who makes them. Don't ask who buys them. Don't ask who supplies recon for them. Don't ask who produces and sells and buys the planes that drop them. Don't ask who gives this genocide diplomatic support, PR support, and tries to shove it down your throat as if you have no agency.

Don't let your masters make you complicit in genocide. Name the actors. Blame them. And fight against them.

Free market propaganda has never been applied under equal circumstances. It is rhetoric used by capital to reduce or destroy regulations, labor, national sovereignty, etc. Western industrialized capitalist coubtries built their industry and infrastructure using tariffs to protect it, then turned around and demanded the opposite from other countries so that they would have to buy their products and sell whatever those colonizer countries wanted (at the time, usualky raw materials).

Now that other countries are ascendant, US-based "free market" capital is gladly re-embracing protectionist logic. It has only ever been about maximizing their profits. The "theory" of free markets tails capital, it isn't a science or even a valid line of thought.

Oh yes, sorry if I implied giving these particular people a break. I was speaking more generally but miscommunicated. The people you mentioned should all be banned in my opinion.

"AI" is a parlor trick. Very impressive at first, then you realize there isn't much to it that is actually meaningful. It regurgitates language patterns, patterns in images, etc. It can make a great Markov chain. But if you want to create an "AI" that just mines research papers, it will be unable to do useful things like synthesize information or describe the state of a research field. It is incapable of critical or analytical approaches. It will only be able to answer simple questions with dubious accuracy and to summarize texts (also with dubious accuracy).

Let's say you want to understand research on sugar and obesity using only a corpus from peer reviewed articles. You want to ask something like, "what is the relationship between sugar and obesity?". What will LLMs do when you ask this question? Well, they will just attempt to do associations and to construct reasonable-sounding sentences based on their set of research articles. They might even just take an actual semtence from an article and reframe it a little, just like a high schooler trying to get away with plagiarism. But they won't be able to actually mechanistically explain the overall mechanisms and will fall flat on their face when trying to discern nonsense funded by food lobbies from critical research. LLMs do not think or criticize. Of they do produce an answer that suggests controversy it will be because they either recognized diversity in the papers or, more likely, their corpus contains reviee articles that criticize articles funded by the food industry. But it will be unable to actually criticize the poor work or provide a summary of the relationship between sugar and obesity based on any actual understanding that questions, for example, whether this is even a valid question to ask in the first place (bodies are not simple!). It can only copy and mimic.

It coincides with their switch to more and more "AI" black box models. Whereas before they would use a hand-tuned heuristic model to describe whether you are turning, merging, or continuing on a road, they just use a less correct but automagic model where they still inevitably have to tune it a whole lot but it is "AI" so it has the approval of the petty lords of management.

Incorrect entrances and closed roads are another example. They're just using satellite and street level imagery and tossing it at some models that spit out things like "door 99% confidence" and "road 98% confidence" while neglecting the question of, "are you actually allowed/able to use this?"

PS under basically every correct answer in this category is a team of poorly-paid "labelers" whose answers directly turn into the data in the map. Your door-that-is-not-an-entrance was marked entrance because someone making $8/hr only had 10 seconds to review before moving to the next question.

I'm holding out for titanium do I can add it to my EDC loadout and totally dunk on that loser Travis at the office.

If you own the copyright then yes this is 100% legal.

There are already apps that are like this. They usually add a couple features to the paid release so that people feel like they are getting something extra for the money. The good ones will eventually move those features to the open release eventually. However, this incentivizes keeping part of the app closed source so that nobody can just rename and re-release the paid version.

It is 100% up to you for how to handle these tradeoffs. Personally, I think so long as you are principled and ready for some criticism - and can handle it gracefully - getting paid for work that builds your open source app is a very good idea. We don't all have the luxury of maintaining high quality unpaid side projects!

The starvation is due to their country being invaded and bombed for 20 years, their foreign reserves being stolen, and massive sanctions. We are seeing collective punishment visited in the normal civilians of Afghanistan.

The Taliban itself only came to power due to destabilization of the former (incompetent) government by the US. They were described as God-fearing freedom fighters that should be (and were) materially supported. It was only the militant Islamophobia of the post-9/11 US that led to any pretense of caring about the people of Afghanistan - and to use this as an excuse for invading and bombing them. For the record, civilians don't benefit from getting bombed.

Now we see this filter down into this discourse, where so long as a person can maintain sufficient hate for the Taliban, it isn't so bad to starve 10-15 million people in Afghanistan. Taliban bad, so widespread deprivation is okay.

The logic in this thread is, and I am not exaggerating, that used by Nazis on their occupied populations and it is why it is a war crime.

The princes squabble over who will be king.

They were banned while saying John Brown did nothing wrong and that slaveowners deserve to die.

Sounds pretty cool to me.

The ruling class of the United States has always been like this. This is a country founded by and for slaveowners that gladly governed in their own favor.

This is direct price to the consumer at a store, not the cost of production. These things are different due to subsidies and externalities. Animal agriculture tends to have a lot of both.