- 2 Posts
- 53 Comments
glaber@lemm.eeto Privacy@lemmy.dbzer0.com•US to screen social media of foreign students for anti-American content7·2 个月前How does this actually work? Would it only realistically affect people with their full name on their profile or who have a profile without their full name on them but that are linked to other services that DO have it?
glaber@lemm.eeto Selfhosted@lemmy.world•wanderer v0.17.0 released — Federation support is hereEnglish6·2 个月前Would this work like an open-source strava alternative?
Which?
glaber@lemm.eeto World News@lemmy.world•Spain wants exemption from NATO’s 5 percent defense spending targetEnglish1·2 个月前deleted by creator
glaber@lemm.eeto World News@lemmy.world•Spain wants exemption from NATO’s 5 percent defense spending targetEnglish1221·2 个月前Good, I wish NATO would disintegrate and European defence return to the competences of the European Union. I don’t want my taxes to benefit the United States neither economically nor strategically. They’ve proven time and time again they want to go it alone. They want to be bosses of the world and everyone to answer to them. Fuck them.
deleted by creator
Lingonaut seems promising, but it isn’t open source, or at least not yet. The creator seems open to being convinced though?
glaber@lemm.eeto Fuck AI@lemmy.world•So apparently we have to watch out for AI-powered descriptions of food when ordering online (doordash) now.4·2 个月前Yeah, makes me wonder how much effort they put into the cooking…
glaber@lemm.eeto Fuck AI@lemmy.world•So apparently we have to watch out for AI-powered descriptions of food when ordering online (doordash) now.12·2 个月前That’s an insane use of AI. When will people realise that the machine is very good at coming up with things that sound true without any regard for what things are true?
glaber@lemm.eeto World News@lemmy.world•New Zealand passes record suspension of lawmakers over hakaEnglish831·2 个月前And, in 2025, the Pākehā keep deciding what happens to indigenous land and indigenous resources, without letting Maori have any voice in it. Toitū te Tiriti!
Yeah! It’s definitely worth adding to my list of migration contenders now that lemm.ee is closing and I have to jump ship
glaber@lemm.eeto Technology@lemmy.world•LinkedIn lays off 281 workers in California, including many Bay Area engineersEnglish1·2 个月前deleted by creator
That might be one of the most unhinged used of ChatGPT I’ve seen yet. There’s virtually no linguistic difference between saying one number or another, all possible answers are gonna look identical to the machine. I’d like to see these slopgobblers try to ask the same question several times and see the results
glaber@lemm.eeto Technology@lemmy.world•Gemini will now automatically summarize your emails unless you opt outEnglish9·3 个月前You jest, but I’ve already seen “AI-powered” toothbrushes on shelves. Let’s give even more health data to corporate giants!
I think you missed the part where I said that it can happen, but that it’s rare and hard to predict.
Yea, sorry, my wording wasn’t the clearest. I meant to say that it is actually not that rare, and hoped that the linked source would help support that claim. From the same website:
We can [assume that] “all votes [are] equally likely except that the probabilities that A,B,C will be middle-ranked of the three in that vote are 30%, 30%, and 40% respectively” where C is the 3rd-party candidate. Then in IRV as #voters→∞, C’s probability of winning is probably exponentially tiny so that Joe Voter is justified in assuming C only a very tiny […] chance of winning. Indeed C only has a tiny chance of merely surviving the first round.
However, Joe reasons, if Joe and friends by honestly-ranking C top do manage to make C survive the first round, then that will almost certainly happen only at the cost of eliminating Joe’s second-favorite candidate A. If the A votes then transfer equally to C and B (which in “1-dimensional politics” with C A B arranged along a “line” in that order, seems likely) then C will almost certainly still lose, and will have deprived A of victory in the process.
The idea then would be that the behavior of mid-ranking the 3rd party candidate would be self-reinforcing in IRV: an assumption of a slight bias that way like we just made (40% versus 30% […]), then leads to it being strategically wise for Joe Voter to do it, leading to a larger bias that way, etc. – positive feedback, self-reinforcing 2-party domination.
Approval Voting is bad because of the simple fact that it doesn’t let you express any preference.
I agree and that’s why I support Score Voting over it! The mechanism to express that one candidate is better than another one is to just give them honest scores! And there’s studies proving that’s the reality is, the vast majority of people are at least somewhat honest when filling out a Score ballot
And when that happens it just defaults to approval, which is still non-monotonic and better than IRV, but it’s been proven anyway that that doesn’t happen and most people are honest (or would learn to be honest after few iterations). IRV is also not devoid of strategy, as it can be better to rank your true favourite lower
Oh yeah, that worked! Thank you very much, I think I’ll be happy here :)