• 0 Posts
  • 32 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: July 12th, 2024
  • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.workstoNo Stupid Questions@lemmy.world•How come Mark Wahlberg got a pass for being the crap out of a Vietnamese guy. But Kevin Spacey, Bill Cosby, Weinstein, do not get a pass? Beside the sexual aspect what is the difference?
    11·
    58 minutes ago

    I am also not saying that all accused rapists are guilty, but that you should believe the victims unless you have strong evidence of the opposite.

    You’re a rapist.

    Onus is now on you to prove otherwise. Good thing negatives are so easy to prove.

    Believing victims doesn’t bring anything bad

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgvjr78ndjo

    Yeah, it’s not like false accusations can destroy lifes either.

    And when someone is accused by 20 people of rape, instead of immediately thinking “these 20 people are greedy liars that are just preying on this poor, innocent celebrity”, you start wondering how you can get 20 people to go through the humiliation of declaring themselves victims of rape, which is seen as shameful (for some reason), without having done anything wrong.

    20 accusers is a form of evidence in itself. For the sake of ‘evidenceless’ accusations, the discussion should be about single accusations with no context.

    And according to your stance, if your mother tells you she’s been assaulted 30 years ago, your answer would be “Do you have proof? Why have you waited for so long? Is the perpetrator famous?”.

    Now you’re setting up a strawman. Of course we believe family and those close to us. The discussion is about the system and how it works.

    if you don’t believe the victims by default, then you believe the rapists by default

    False analogy. It’s possible to have insufficient evidence for a decision. Especially in he-said-she-said situations

    In the meantime, I’ll be waiting for you to prove you’re not a rapist.

  • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.workstoComic Strips@lemmy.world•Stop telling me AI is the future [Still Vreni]
    2·
    3 days ago

    You harken back to a mythical era where we don’t have actual economic data. Sorry, but that is about as convincing as a wet fart.

    Or perhaps you just didn’t bother looking.

    https://wid.world/document/inequality-in-history-a-long-run-view-wid-world-working-paper-2024-05/

    Yes absolutely absolute numbers.

    No disagreement there then, except for which metric is more important.

    if you consider underemployed people as wage slaves this number is easily ten times the estimated 50 million modern day slaves.

    You better start including serfs and peasants, 99% of the population historically, to those slave number comparisons then. Though there’s a good argument to be made they should be included anyway.

    Face it, compared to the entirety of human history, we’re in a golden age. Things ONLY look bleak when you’re looking at recent history. And even then, only in the western world. The rest of us from outside the Anglosphere have pretty much only seen things improving in the past century.

  • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.workstoComic Strips@lemmy.world•Stop telling me AI is the future [Still Vreni]
    52·
    3 days ago

    After 80 years of fruitless struggle by human mathematicians, a major geometry conjecture has at last been solved—via a straightforward query to a chatbot.

    There’s value having tedious work done by AI so it can provide inspiration to real people, which is exactly what happened in this case.

    So, it’s a monkeys-on-typewriters situation with the computer able to try and reject the hammering of who knows how many square pegs into round holes until it finally arrives at a workable conclusion, which a human has already bested.

    Gee, sounds like it’s enabling people! The horror.

    This is categorically failing to set the world on fire,

    Things can be useful in the right context without setting the world on fire.