Those people doing the majority of the lumping, and it’s not even close, are the corporations themselves. The short hand exists. Machine learning is doing fine. Intentionally misinterpreting a message to incidentally defend the actions of the corporations doing the damage you are opposed to ain’t it.

You should really try and consider what it means for technology to be a cultural feature. Think, genuinely and critically, about what it means when someone tells you that you shouldn’t judge the ethics and values of their pursuits, because they are simply discovering “universal truths”.

And then, really make sure you ponder what it means when people say the purpose of a system is what it does. Why that might get brought up in discussions about wanton resource spending for venture capitalist hype.

No. I’m just not fear mongering things I do not understand.

Neither am I. When you’re defending whatabputism, it’s best you at least try to represent the arguments of the person you’re arguing with accurately.

False equivalence is a classic. Biotechnology is not a technology, for example, it’s billions of technologies informed, designed, and implemented, by humans, technology is a cultural feature.

Technology as this thing free from the ethics of its use is tech bro ancap cope to justify technological pursuits with empty ethical value. You can think “banning human progress in any way” is evil. But that would make you wildly uncritical of your own beliefs.

Feel free to take your arguments back to e/acc, where that level of convenience induced niavety is considered rhetorically valid.

So you’re using a different specific and niche technology (which directly benefits and exists because of) the technology that is the subject of critique, and acting like the subject technology behaves like yours?

“Google is doing a bad with z”

“z can’t be bad, I use y and it doesn’t have those problems that are already things that happened. In the past. Unchangeable by future actions.”

??

Plenty of smart people are focused on stupid ideas that are useless in general. Plenty of people who only appear smart also do the same.

Technology is a cultural creation, not a magic box outside of its circumstances. “The problem isn’t the technology, it’s the creators, users, and perpetuators” is tautological.

And, importantly, the purpose of a system is what it does.

In what sense does a small community working with open weight (note: rarely if ever open source) llm have any mitigating impact on the rampant carbon emissions for the sake of bullshit generators?

The regulation appears to be based on the area of the plot, not the dimensions. By assigning explicitly annotated dimensions it can confuse the intended message more than using a goofy but useful analogy.

https://theconversation.com/just-stop-oil-do-radical-protests-turn-the-public-away-from-a-cause-heres-the-evidence-192901

Interesting! Thank you.

Neat that the dorsal plane bends, I could see that disagreeing with the body orientation planes

Honestly I was expecting far more downvotes. I posted the video with people like you in mind, who still can think critically are marks without the burden of misinformation and ideology. not being marks.

Ftfy

By the way, if you think you are not subject to ideology, I have several things to sell you.

For anyone else reading: everyone is subject to ideology. The moment you think you arent, that is when you are most trapped by it.

Dorsal means towards the (anatomical) back, ventral means towards the ground. These are perpendicular to the dorsal plane, as frontwards is perpendicular to the frontal plane.

I’m unfamiliar with brain orientation so perhaps the tradition is a bit different!

It can be either the frontal or dorsal, however consider in zoology “dorsal fin”. Intuitively this is because the front of these animals doesn’t align with the frontal plane as it does in humans, but dorsal is a common alternative.

Because quadrupeds are oriented differently. This chart is accurate.

A green buildings designer might develop new environmentally friendly materials for construction projects,”

So instead of referencing the jobs that already exist, scientist, r&d, particularly materials scientists, or mentioning civil engineers, they made up an entirely new job and are shocked it doesn’t exist yet.

Corporate writers are incredibly out of touch.

Yeah I don’t believe most of these are real “big taboos” and will continue eating food the way it is most tasty to do, regardless, thanks.

“How to email in a stiff, cold, professional tone for the first two emails in a chain before the pretense is dropped and we email informally because there are more important things to do.”

Yes, all of that is obviously true between shirts, the question is about shirt color, which is almost entirely down to the pigments used in fabrication. In which case it is entirely due to the absorptivity, emissivity, reflectance, and opacity, of the pigment.

This isn’t an active area of debate, it’s an entirely empirical question or a hard modeling problem per shirt manufacturer. All of this is very solved science, and has become “an engineering problem”

The temperature of the shirt itself will have a majority of the impact on the heat transfer. Whether a given pigment is reflective in the ir is impossible to predict by eye, see below. Black shirts will warm you up more in general, though offer better protection against UV. You can however get special UV protective white colored shirts.

It depends on the absorptivity of the pigment at that given wavelength. Foil for example works because in ye infrared it is still reflective. Without an infrared camera and an infrared light it’s impossible to tell what the infrared absorptivity of a given shirt is by eye. The science articles are not giving the full picture.