Not a good example. “Defending X” is a much stronger requirement than just “pointing out that a specific argument against X is invalid”; the latter is done by everyone who likes seeing good arguments rather than bad arguments, and isn’t a sign of liking X.

(The most pro-russian (as in, supporting the russian-ukraine war) stuff I’ve seen was various memes from lemmy.ml and lemmygrad that ended up in popular. I’m having trouble finding a better example than that; in particular, because Lemmy’s search is bad and doesn’t seem to allow for searching recent comments from a specific instance, and also refuses to give me more than a few pages of results.)

This meme is from 2035

There might be a universe in which magic exists. However, there is no universe in which I exist and magic exists. That’s because I was born into a mundane version of the universe, so there are infinite possibilities, but because my existence in a magical universe is 0

That doesn’t really follow. Specifically, you’re putting way too much credit (infinity times as much credit as you should, in fact) on your ability to know exactly how your universe works. You’re saying there are zero hypothetical worlds in which you are the person you are now and also magic exists. I’m sure you can see how this is not true; for all you know magic is very obvious in your world and you just got mind-controlled, a minute ago, to your current state of mind. Or maybe you just never noticed it and hence grew up thinking you are in a mundane universe, which is very unlikely but not probability-0. Or one of many many other explanations, which are all unlikely (nothing involving a universe with magic in it is going to be likely), but very much not probability-0.

It very nearly did, but there’s, like, 2 working instances with heavy ratelimits.

…we’re talking about a ban of links to Twitter on a gaming subreddit. Those links would be to, like, game news. That’s not “fascist content”.

Oh, that’s really cool. I hope there’s more linkage between the twitter-like and reddit-like islands of the fediverse in the future; I’m somewhat interested in reading the former but it seems to be complicated to actually get federation with it.

I think it’s way worse to keep information from someone who wants to see it, than to let it be seen by someone who would prefer not to see it but isn’t motivated enough to do something about it. Sort of by construction, actually - if the latter category really didn’t want to see Twitter links, they would have done it themselves.

It’s not totally insane reasoning but, like, people can just downvote links to Twitter if they want to, and/or use an extension to automatically redirect to a Nitter instance. The only people actually affected by censoring Twitter community-wide is those who would want to look at the context.

In the US, you mean? From the top of my mind, advocating for more market freedom - unrestricted capitalism is a mixed bag generally, but the Biden administration was price-fixing insurance in the wake of California fires, which is a degree of economical illiteracy approaching Soviet Union levels.

Sure, in Firefox itself it wasn’t a severe vulnerability. It’s way worse on standalone PDF readers, though:

In applications that embed PDF.js, the impact is potentially even worse. If no mitigations are in place (see below), this essentially gives an attacker an XSS primitive on the domain which includes the PDF viewer. Depending on the application this can lead to data leaks, malicious actions being performed in the name of a victim, or even a full account take-over. On Electron apps that do not properly sandbox JavaScript code, this vulnerability even leads to native code execution (!). We found this to be the case for at least one popular Electron app.

Huh? What do you mean “if”? Such a PDF vulnerability literally did happen a few months ago; fixed in Firefox v.126: https://codeanlabs.com/blog/research/cve-2024-4367-arbitrary-js-execution-in-pdf-js/.

There’s no real need for pirate ai when better free alternatives exist.

There’s plenty of open-source models, but they very much aren’t better, I’m afraid to say. Even if you have a powerful workstation GPU and can afford to run the serious 70B opensource models at low quantization, you’ll still get results significantly worse than the cutting-edge cloud models. Both because the most advanced models are proprietary, and because they are big and would require hundreds of gigabytes of VRAM to run, which you can trivially rent from a cloud service but can’t easily get in your own PC.

The same goes for image generation - compare results from proprietary services like midjourney to the ones you can get with local models like SD3.5. I’ve seen some clever hacks in image generation workflows - for example, using image segmentation to detect a generated image’s face and hands and then a secondary model to do a second pass over these regions to make sure they are fine. But AFAIK, these are hacks that modern proprietary models don’t need, because they have gotten over those problems and just do faces and hands correctly the first time.

This isn’t to say that running transformers locally is always a bad idea; you can get great results this way - but people saying it’s better than the nonfree ones is mostly cope.

Incredibly weird that this thread was up for two days without anyone posting a link to the actual answer to OP’s question, which is g4f.

Difficulty is hardly the point of the post.

There is no world issue that can be solved by just throwing money at it. Those issues have had MUCH more money thrown at them than all of the net worth of all billionaires on Earth combined, without being solved.

That seems obviously false, unless you’re proposing that all the charities in the world are scams and don’t actually do anything. I guess you could argue that as you throw money into saving lives, the low-hanging fruits get picked and the cost rises, so you can never saturate all the charities - but this is a very weak argument, since saving 99.99% of all the people in the world from hunger or poverty would be about as good as 100%. Just because there’s diminishing returns doesn’t mean it’s a doomed cause.

I think you have exactly the opposite impression of wealth than how it is in reality, then. Billionaires typically have only a tiny amount of their wealth in liquid funds (what you call “holding” money) - most of their wealth is in investments, and hence “in the economy”. So the thing you’re proposing already holds.

Damn, I didn’t know things were so bad there in Canada.

Even in the detailed info? If so that’s weird; probably something along the lines of “the seller messed up the weight, fixed it, but for some insane reason the site doesn’t recalculate the price”.

What happened there? These are presumably calculated automatically, so does the second item has its mass listed as 2kg?

Run for office? With what money?