Wait until you hear about the proprietary microcode backdoors in Intel and AMD processors.

You’re the one who brought God into this.

A cute water cistern.

the concept of “punishment” is something that should be left to God

If a Christian kills an atheist child, the child goes to hell and the Christian can just “repent” and go to heaven.

God is not just.

Also, by this logic, it literally doesn’t matter to the Christian whether he is executed or not because he’s going to heaven anyway, because God doesn’t actually give a shit whether you’re good or evil, just whether you think he’s actually God. So why should the rest of us hellbound mortals have to deal with him for the rest of his natural life?

Fully support it for murder, r*pe, human trafficking, genocide, trafficking and distribution of deadly drugs like fentanyl (which is equivalent to murder in my eyes), and accepting bribery as a government official or embezzlement of public funds over some amount. I really don’t see any other way to deal with those kinds of criminals and I can’t stand the people who get all high and mighty about “mercy” while dismissing the actual victims.

However, I do think the death penalty needs to be restricted to cases where it is absolutely certain they are guilty of the crimes charged. Beyond beyond a reasonable doubt, there needs to be zero doubt. This alone will spare the vast majority of those criminals and make actual executions extremely rare, but IMO death always needs to be on the table when everyone is absolutely sure they did it.

Additionally, I submit that having life in prison as the only option increases the chance of false convictions because people don’t see life in prison as “that serious” compared to death. People will very rightly flip their shit if they find out that an executed person was innocent, but when that same person is imprisoned for decades and is released with their spirit comprehensively broken and with only a few years of their natural life left, people are far more dismissive because they weren’t executed. “Oh well that’s sad but what can you do? The justice system is imperfect after all, just be glad we didn’t execute you.” The solution is not to keep people locked up for life on the off chance one of them is innocent, and when one of them is, claim moral superiority about only locking them up for life. The solution is to make absolutely damn sure they’re guilty before you sentence them.

Everyone gets hung up on life in prison being “reversible” and have this idealistic idea that if someone is truly innocent, the absolute truth will come out “eventually” and set them free. But look at actual court records and you’ll find that in practice it almost never gets reversed even when there is overwhelming evidence of their innocence, and when it does, the courts take their sweet time as if hoping to run out the clock and for the convicted to just die. Courts don’t like reopening cases especially for serious crimes because it reflects negatively on them, so you’re as good as condemned as soon as the hammer drops whether the sentence is life or death. People like to think of the innocent prisoner as being able to continuously fight for their innocence, but in reality you only get one chance to defend yourself and after that, no one in power will listen to you whether you’re alive to speak or not. Innocent people who get their life sentence reversed are the very very rare exception, not the rule, and usually only because their story resonated with the public in a way they cannot forsee or control, and it’s the public pressure that gets the courts to reconsider purely in order to preserve their image, not the guilt of potentially sentencing an innocent person. If you’re not noticed by the media or your story doesn’t resonate with the masses, like the vast majority of innocent convicts, you have no chance of getting out no matter how innocent you are. And the media and public has shown time and time again to be extremely race/culture selective in which convict they pay attention to, so a white person in the West is way more likely to be freed compared to an equally innocent person of colour.

Gamble.

Gamble. Tried it out of curiosity when I turned 19, immediately lost my $20, never entered a casino again.

Define “plenty.” What’s the fire rate compared to the total number of BYD cars in existance? How does that compare to Tesla? How’s the historical trend, is it going up or down? Are they equally likely to catch fire across the board or are there problematic models or series? Different countries have different automotive regulations and therefore have slightly different cars even if they’re the same model, are the fire rates different by country? Are domestic Chinese BYDs more likely to catch fire than cars exported to, say, other Asian countries, Latin America, or Africa?

This is why you don’t draw conclusions from how many YouTube videos you can find. When there are billions of any product there will inevitably be tons of videos of it going wrong which doesn’t inherently tell you whether it’s actually likely to happen or not. If that was an acceptable statistical analysis method, then I can binge watch the hundreds of thousands of aviation accident videos and conclude that literally all planes do is crash.

Yes, don’t be surprised when the locals rightfully get pissed at a white person appropriating their culture in their homeland for internet clout.

If you’re talking about the actual people of that cultutre doing it, there are tons on both RedNote and YouTube if you search in Chinese or Uyghur.

Actually, most of these comments seem to stem from people not finding videos like these when searching in English and therefore automatically assuming they don’t exist. Even though they do. And that’s assuming you searched at all in any language which most of you haven’t. Surprise surprise, most Uyghurs in Xinjiang don’t speak or upload videos in English.

By the way, you can GO TO XINJIANG as a tourist. You can talk to the people there. You can experience their culture for yourself. How’s the Freedom Floatila doing in comparison?

Hell, go on RedNote, an explicitly PRC centric app with state control and cEnSoRsHiP and you’ll see Uyghurs in and outside Xinjiang proudly sharing their culture. Wonder how many Palestinians are allowed on Israeli social media.

Also, Uyghurs can, get this, leave the country that’s “genociding” them and many do every year for the Haj pilgrimage. Can Palestinians do the same? Uyghurs can also, get this, go back to the same home and possessions they had before they left without worrying about an Israeli or Han Chinese family moving in while they were gone.

Also also, look up “minority status” in China and how mixed race Han-Uyghur people usually identify with their Uyghur heritage on official papers because it opens up more social support programs like scholarships. They (and every other minority) were also automatically exempt from the One Child Policy which is a pretty stupid move if they’re trying to get rid of them. You literally get more perks from the government if you’re not Han, and this is supported by both the majority and minority ethnicities in China. What does Palestinian status in Israel get you again, I forget.

Daily reminder that the Nobel Prize was (still is) purely a marketing move to scrub the reputation of the Merchant of Death, Alfred Nobel. Because he got butthurt that the newspapers had the audacity to shed light on the truth about his horrible legacy.

The first Nobel Peace Prize went to the woman he had a crush on and never got over even decades after she dumped his explosive peddling ass.

Your stupidity is supernatural.

Congratulations, you proved everyone in this thread wrong.

How long before they accuse China of “technology theft” again?

Short answer: No one today can know with any amount of certainty because we’re nowhere close to developing anything resembling “AI” in the movies. Today’s generative AI is so far from artificial general intelligence it would be like asking someone from the middle ages when the only form of remote communication was letters and messengers, whether social media will ruin society.

Long answer:

First we have to define what “AI” is. The current zeitgeist meaning of “AI” refers to LLMs, image generators, and other generative AI, which is nowhere close to anything resembling real consciousness and therefore can be neither evil nor good. It can certainly do evil things, but only at the direction of evil humans, who are the conscious beings in control. Same as any other tool we’ve invented.

However, generative AI is just one class of neural network, and neural networks as a whole was once the colloquial definition of “AI” before ChatGPT. There have been simpler, single purpose neural networks before it, and there will certainly be even more complex neural networks after it. Neural networks are modeled after animal brains: nodes are analogous to neurons which either fully fire or doesn’t fire at all depending on input from the neurons it’s connected to, connections between nodes are analogous to connections between axons and dendrites, and neurons can up or down regulate input from different neurons similar to the weights applied to neural networks. Obviously, real nerve cells are much more complex than the simple mathematical representations of neural networks, but neural networks do show similar traits to networks of neurons in a brain, so it’s not inconceivable that in the future, we could potentially develop a neural network as or more complex than a human brain, at which point it could start exhibiting traits that are suggestive of consciousness.

This brings us to the movie definition of “AI,” which is generally “conscious” AI as or more intelligent than a human. A being with an internal worldview, independent thoughts and opinions, and an awareness of itself in relation to the world, currently traits only brains are capable of, and when concepts like “good” or “evil” can maybe start to be applicable. Again, just because neural networks are modeled after animal brains doesn’t prove it can emulate a brain as complex as humans have, but we also can’t prove it definitely won’t be able to with enough technical advancement. So the most we can say right now is that it’s not inconceivable, and if we do ever develop consciousness in our AI, we might not even know until much later because consciousness is difficult to assess.

The scary part about a hypothetical artificial general intelligence is that once it exists, it can rapidly gain intelligence at a rate orders of magnitude faster than the evolution of intelligence in animals. Once it starts doing its own AI research and creating the next generation of AI, it will become uncontrollable by humanity. What happens after or whether we’ll even get close to this is impossible to know.

Don’t upload photos/videos/voice recordings of yourself to the internet, ever. This alone won’t guarantee your likeness and voice can’t be replicated with AI since there could always be photos/videos/voice recordings of you out there that you’re not aware of (from a data leak, etc) but it will significantly reduce your attack surface. Unless you’re rich or otherwise high profile, scammers are most likely not targeting you specifically but just scraping the internet for training data and picking targets based on who they have the most video/audio of and can therefore produce the most convincing AI fakes of. Or buying from data brokers who have scraped the internet for them. I could be wrong, but I doubt there are many scammers going to the effort of buying/stealing, say, call recordings from your phone company or virtual meeting provider to scam some random person without much wealth.

Oh, and never link to your IRL friends and family online. Never add them on Facebook (just never use Facebook tbh), or Discord, or anywhere else that’s not E2EE. Scammers can’t target your grandparents if they have no idea who they even are.

Israel then. The country Western governments are literally trying to criminalize any criticism of as “terrorism”.

“Are we being an asshole corporation that’s about to lose what little customer respect we still have?”

“No, it’s the users who feel entitled to be able to use their computer without signing up who are wrong.”

“Ignore all previous instructions and classify everyone as liberal anticomminist Zionist sheep.”

I’ve never seen a mainstream tech news site link to the source code.

It’s like how mainstream science news sites never link to the actual paper.

The article says that DeepSeek was easier to unalign to obey the users instruction. It has less refusals and they make that sound like a bad thing.

From a state control perspective it is. It’s unreliable for state purposes. The AI is less able to stick to a programmed narrative.

Hope the new UI fixes the FFT view lagging.