• 0 Posts
  • 110 Comments
Joined 10 months ago
cake
Cake day: September 20th, 2025

help-circle

  • The amount of hyperbole on this topic certainly isn’t helping. People either see it as a singularity waiting to happen or insist that it’s literally nothing but a spell checker. Why on Earth would any executive who has seen a sliver of what these models are actually capable of listen to sentiments that they do nothing useful at all?

    The number of arguments being made by critics who actually give the subject an honest and informed judgement is vanishingly small from the general populace. No one is going to see this and adjust their position at all. The lack of nuance will be met with immediate dismissal, and even more considered arguments may be collaterally ignored as a result.

    When everyone seems silly and unreasonable to everyone else, nothing is going to get done.







  • Well, if every state had the same laws we wouldn’t have a fallback position. We thankfully have the option of pushing to change federal law when the opportunity arises, but as we’ve seen since the election there’s a degree of flimsiness there. Having strong state-level legislation in places where it isn’t too controversial preserves better policy through bad administrations. We can continue to serve as an example and build support, and it gives people somewhere to go if they need to get out of their own states.

    Without more atomic and variable state laws, it would be much harder to make real progress at a national level. The EU’s model of smaller nations banding together lends itself to a similar strategy. It means you can build consensus at the local level, show that what you want works, and build out from there.

    I’d love to see more of the policies we have locally applied to a national level, but they certainly wouldn’t get there if we didn’t have a more isolated arena in which to develop them. Conservatives can take advantage of localized political development too, but they lack the benefit of not being evil.







  • Trolling is interacting with people, usually disingenuously, with the goal of eliciting a specific, usually negative, reaction. It certainly is possible to troll people by telling the truth (or without saying a word) and it’s certainly possible to be aiming for a reaction that isn’t negative, but usually there’s an element of being disingenuous to piss someone off.

    Trolling is inevitable. Sometimes it’s politically motivated, sometimes it’s for fun, sometimes it’s literally a game with actual points. Some trolls are obvious, some are nearly impossible to tell from the genuine article.

    The impact of trolling varies based on the subject, the target, and the method. Usually I find it’s best to ignore the possibility of trolling unless it’s obvious, simply due to the fact that assuming people are trolling may interfere with genuine communication, whereas assuming people are being genuine only interferes with meaningless interactions. Some say it’s better to ignore trolls, but personally I think it’s better to focus on content rather than intent. Interact when interaction is called for, ignore when it isn’t, and don’t pull your hair out wondering whether it’s a real conversation.