Skip to content

You can still enable uBlock Origin in Chrome, here is how

Technology
130 97 2.1k
  • Thinking Is Becoming a Luxury Good

    Technology technology
    30
    65 Stimmen
    30 Beiträge
    245 Aufrufe
    S
    In political science, the term polyarchy (poly "many", arkhe "rule") was used by Robert A. Dahl to describe a form of government in which power is invested in multiple people. It takes the form of neither a dictatorship nor a democracy. This form of government was first implemented in the United States and France and gradually adopted by other countries. Polyarchy is different from democracy, according to Dahl, because the fundamental democratic principle is "the continuing responsiveness of the government to the preferences of its citizens, considered as political equals" with unimpaired opportunities. A polyarchy is a form of government that has certain procedures that are necessary conditions for following the democratic principle. So yeah, you are right. A representative "democracy" is not a democracy. It's a monarchy with more than one ruler. A gummy bear is as much a bear as representative democracy is a democracy. I didn't know that, because i was taught in school that a representative "democracy" is a form of democracy. And the name makes it sound like one. But it isn't. It's not even supposed to be in theory. I am sure 99% of people living in a representative "democracy" don't know this. I hereby encourage everyone to abandon the word representative "democracy" in favor of polyarchy or maybe oligarchy. This makes it much clearer what we are talking about. Also i doubt the authors of this article know this, because they imply that representative "democracy" is desirable, but it is obviously undesirable.
  • 259 Stimmen
    29 Beiträge
    155 Aufrufe
    P
    Don Quixote was a fool but not an asshole.
  • Something I noticed

    Technology technology
    2
    3 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    38 Aufrufe
    H
    This would be better suited in some casual ranting community. Or one concerned with tech bros. I think it's completely off topic here.
  • 816 Stimmen
    199 Beiträge
    4k Aufrufe
    Z
    It's clear you don't really understand the wider context and how historically hard these tasks have been. I've been doing this for a decade and the fact that these foundational models can be pretrained on unrelated things then jump that generalization gap so easily (within reason) is amazing. You just see the end result of corporate uses in the news, but this technology is used in every aspect of science and life in general (source: I do this for many important applications).
  • 196 Stimmen
    21 Beiträge
    192 Aufrufe
    S
    Sure: for professionals. However when casually commenting in a forum it is fine because the reader can go check the citations (and perhaps come back and add to the thread).
  • 462 Stimmen
    94 Beiträge
    1k Aufrufe
    L
    Make them publishers or whatever is required to have it be a legal requirement, have them ban people who share false information. The law doesn't magically make open discussions not open. By design, social media is open. If discussion from the public is closed, then it's no longer social media. ban people who share false information Banning people doesn't stop falsehoods. It's a broken solution promoting a false assurance. Authorities are still fallible & risk banning over unpopular/debatable expressions that may turn out true. There was unpopular dissent over covid lockdown policies in the US despite some dramatic differences with EU policies. Pro-palestinian protests get cracked down. Authorities are vulnerable to biases & swayed. Moreover, when people can just share their falsehoods offline, attempting to ban them online is hard to justify. If print media, through its decline, is being held legally responsible Print media is a controlled medium that controls it writers & approves everything before printing. It has a prepared, coordinated message. They can & do print books full of falsehoods if they want. Social media is open communication where anyone in the entire public can freely post anything before it is revoked. They aren't claiming to spread the truth, merely to enable communication.
  • 478 Stimmen
    81 Beiträge
    1k Aufrufe
    douglasg14b@lemmy.worldD
    Did I say that it did? No? Then why the rhetorical question for something that I never stated? Now that we're past that, I'm not sure if I think it's okay, but I at least recognize that it's normalized within society. And has been for like 70+ years now. The problem happens with how the data is used, and particularly abused. If you walk into my store, you expect that I am monitoring you. You expect that you are on camera and that your shopping patterns, like all foot traffic, are probably being analyzed and aggregated. What you buy is tracked, at least in aggregate, by default really, that's just volume tracking and prediction. Suffice to say that broad customer behavior analysis has been a thing for a couple generations now, at least. When you go to a website, why would you think that it is not keeping track of where you go and what you click on in the same manner? Now that I've stated that I do want to say that the real problems that we experience come in with how this data is misused out of what it's scope should be. And that we should have strong regulatory agencies forcing compliance of how this data is used and enforcing the right to privacy for people that want it removed.
  • 0 Stimmen
    17 Beiträge
    148 Aufrufe
    F
    You seem to think we disagree on creation of a police state or massive surveillance system being a bad thing for some reason. None of which are stopped with regulations by the states that are funding and building said things ...