Lol dude I am also not arguing about the main point, my contention is that you’re being uppity with phrasing when you are in fact entirely wrong. If you’re gonna be a grammar Nazi you have to at least be correct.
edit: ah nevermind I understand from your most recent comment that you’re just trolling
No, we are taking about violence in a region, which can have many causes and origins. Violence in the region has stemmed from a combination of religion and foreign interference (and presumably many other things). If this isn’t what your claim addresses, then your claim is irrelevant to this conversation.
Hahaha
Cool that’s great. Can you tell me that none of the software you use has been developed by software engineers making use of machine learning methods?
Lol what are you talking about? Many things can have a stem, such as a plant, which is not the same as the stem itself. According to all major dictionaries, stem can mean the main trunk of a plant, but it can also mean other certain plant part providing support. So your claim doesn’t hold.
Some definitions include the word “main”… and many definitions don’t. So actually I don’t see anything necessarily indicating that there can only be one stem.
This is a great example since AI isn’t taking on the role of an independent software engineer here, so there is no “Jim” and this is much less of an issue than y’all are making it out to be. You know that auto-correct is also a form of ML right? Have you considered that tools can be used responsibly and that standards for software developers still apply even when they use new tools?
Of course it can—why do you think something can’t have multiple stems? No one said that it stems exclusively from one thing.
Alright friend, OP certainly never implied “giving government ubiquitous control over the food supply” by any means, so at least this is clearly a simple case of strawman fallacy.
edit: like if you think about it for literally more than two seconds, you’ll realize that OP’s idea involved building capacity amongst the general population for horticulture, something which fundamentally opposes the idea of giving government ubiquitous control.
Is there a name for the fallacy that something is doomed to fail just because some quasi-communist state tried to implement something similar at some point?
Fair enough, that seems accurate!
You seem to be assuming that this idea would have to solve all food consumed by everyone. No one is making that assumption except for you.
Only available for children in the summer… I don’t think this isn’t the solution being proposed.
Tbh in my experience LLM and other recently developed techniques such as stable diffusion are referred to as GenAI by most lay people. For both lay people and technical audience, i.e. people who work in machine learning, AI has a much broader significance.
Most people on Lemmy seem to define AI as “evil machine learning that i don’t like” vs non-AI as everything else. It’s a wee bit delusional.
Honestly I don’t see them complaining nor are they pretending that it’s uniquely male. I just don’t see any words to support that. Do you think you might be reading a bit too much into it?
That’s fair, I don’t be necessarily disagree, but perhaps another way of thinking about it is simply by looking at the diversity and types of interpretations that there may be for a particular work. For example, a book club reading 1984 would likely discuss the author’s intended reflection on the real world; whereas a book club reading LOTR (depending on the individuals) is much more likely to be discussing the emotions and individual travails and growth of the characters and how the relate to a world which is distinctly its own (even if there are inevitable similarities to our own). In practice, I feel that is a clear enough distinction.
It’s an interesting story, I definitely appreciate learning about this… and one which is very specific to Oklahoma, and doesn’t reveal all that much (nor would I say it’s necessary to hear to understand the crux) of Americanism.
I interpret it quite differently to mean that a good (hi)story is indeed its own unique creation which can exist and be judged and enjoyed on its own accord without necessarily being a commentary or reflection of anything in the real world. Of course, all imagination relates to the real world to some extent—and that’s where applicability comes in—but it’s possible to reject the elements of allegory and in doing to build your own world which feels just as real and nuanced as our own.
Despite all the downvotes, I think it’s a reasonable enough question. It happens to have a very reasonable answer though.
First of all, your concern is largely addressed, since immigration control can still access law enforcement databases if they have a warrant.
As for why this law exists at all, well it’s actually to the benefit of law enforcement: the idea is that immigrant communities are more likely to cooperate with law enforcement if they aren’t scared that they will be the target of immigration control. This is all the more practical now, when ICE has degraded into a largely lawless and authoritarian organization, since you can imagine most immigrants wouldn’t want to say a word to any police officer unless they at least have the protections of the 2017 TRUST act in place.
Now, what I’m a bit confused about is why you are so up-in-arms about the existence of this law instead of the violation of this law. Surely if you are so law-abiding as you make out to be in your comments, you should be shouting for legal action against the police officers involved in breaking the law.