Louis Ingenthron @LouisIngenthron@social.cleverlibre.org

@carnage4life That sounds too good to be true.

@b4ux1t3 @grumpasaurus @bhawthorne A while back, I actually trained an LLM to crawl recipe sites, detect pages with recipes, and extract them from their paragraphs of pointless stories, while also rating the page for clarity and brevity. Had 98% accuracy.
Was thinking about creating a search engine that prioritized things people actually wanted instead of just wordiness. But I'm not friends with any rich VCs, so 🤷‍♂️

@mike805 @freemo That may apply to catapults and ballistas, but things like siege towers and battering rams are still much more analogous to tanks.

@freemo And, ironically, if they are, then the best defense against them was typically fire arrows, and the modern equivalent, flamethrowers, *are* federally legal.

@freemo Wouldn't siege weapons, like ballistas and catapults and siege towers, which are mobile heavy weapons platforms designed to protect their operators, be the medieval equivalent of tanks?

@ikluft Pretty sure some cultures had to change their entire navigational method from the ground up to meet international standards.

As far as retrofits go, changing a couple light bulbs and instruction book diagrams is hardly the end of the world. You give it a year of transition time where both systems are in effect and grandfather in anything that can't reasonably upgrade in that time (like autonomous satellites).

We shouldn't limit ourselves to subpar solutions just because that's what was done before.

@ikluft @aerosavvy No, I get that. My point is that it's strange that we haven't changed this old rule that needlessly disqualifies something like 8% of males.

There are many other color combinations we could use instead that don't have that problem.

@CosmicTrigger It has literally nothing to do with capitalism. Hate speech laws are fallible in any government run by humans.

@thelos Ah, sorry, I misinterpreted that as trying to rehabilitate the shepherds.

@CosmicTrigger The problem with that is that "hate speech" is subjective. Criminalize it one day and watch the fascists use it to arrest drag queens the next day. That's a door we don't want to open.

@CosmicTrigger 🤷‍♂️We have incitement laws too, but they're narrowly tailored because we expect the listener to exercise a modicum of independent thought. And also, that's a far cry from trying to criminalize hate speech, which is closer to what I was talking about above.

@thelos
Disagree. It's an okay way, but whenever you prosecute one shepherd, three new ones pop up because the problem is the demand, not the supply. The better way is to educate the masses from the beginning so they have a stronger resistance to becoming sheep in the first place.

@Cyrus @kel @fifilamoura No, it doesn't. It makes you a criminal. You don't solve problems in a civil society by instigating violence. And when you commit violence because of political differences, then you are *actively worse* than the nonviolent fascists seeking to gut our rights the democratic way.

@fifilamoura Yep, but also even on a simpler level. I keep hearing from leftists asking "why do we allow these nazis to keep spreading their hate?" without ever realizing that enabling the government to shut down subversive speech is *exactly what they want*.

@tristansnell That's not quite right. The right to protest includes the right to protest private parties. The 1A corollary, freedom of association, is explicitly about protecting speech among private parties. 1A also protects us from private lawsuits for speech that is opinion or a true statement of fact.

The first amendment protects *all* speech in America, except for a few well-defined categorical exceptions, including defamation. It just only protects us from government-imposed consequences.