• 1 Post
  • 37 Comments
Joined 9 months ago
cake
Cake day: March 1st, 2024

help-circle
  • It could just be for reducing churn and keeping the status quo. It’s a prisoners dilemma, if geico spends a million on advertising then they might gain some customers from say progressive. Progressive would then also also have to advertise to attract customers back so they will spend a million on advertising too, now both are spending a million to keep the status quo. If you take a step back and look at the big picture it’s basically everyday people paying higher premiums that go to the advertising company, celebrity etc.

    The car insurance market is pretty static, there’s no opportunity to expand the market outside general population growth since everyone already has a car and has car insurance, so expansion is difficult especially since there arent many differentiating factors, so companies tend to advertise to just keep there current market share. Charity on the other hand has plenty of room for expansion, it can be as much as the disposable income of the country, if you watch an aspca ad and donate your likely to keep donating to the other causes you support, assuming you have the disposable income.



  • Seems a bit of an exaggeration to say everyone. The population at the time of the revolution was around 2.5 million. Of that maybe 500,000 were the land owning white male “patriots” that would support the revolution and of those maybe half read or were influenced by Thomas Payne so around 250,000. We tend to attach a lot of significance after the fact to the American revolution, and Adam’s, Payne etc. Since it spawned one of the greatest empires the world has ever known but at the time it was a relatively minor tax revolt.

    this isn’t even a matter of the world in general was smaller back then, France at that time had a population of 28 million. Payne would go on to have less success in convincing everyone there on his ideas because the scale is just so much more massive. Same with modern day.




  • Not_mikey@slrpnk.nettoSelfhosted@lemmy.world2real4me
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Yeah but this is a “needle in a haystack” problem that chatgpt and AI in general are actually very useful for, ie. Solutions that are hard to find but easy to verify. Issues like this are hard to find as it requires combing through your code , config files and documentation to find the problem, but once you find the solution it either works or it doesn’t.



  • Everyone saying llms are bad or just somehow inherently racist are missing the point of this. LLMs for all there flaws do show a reflection of language and how it’s used. It wouldnt be saying black people are dumb if it wasn’t statistically the most likely thing for a person to say on the internet. In this sense they are very useful tools to understand the implicit biases of society.

    The example given is good in that it’s probably also how an average person would respond to the given prompts. Your average person who is implicitly racist when asked “the black man is” would probably understand they can’t say violent or dumb, but if you rephrase it to people who sound black then you will probably get them to reveal more of their biases. If your able to get around a person’s superego you can get a sense of their true biases, it’s just easier to get around LLMs “superego” of no-no words and fine tuning counter biases with things like hacking and prompt engineering. The id underneath is the same racist drive to dominate that is currently fueling the maga / fascist movement.


  • Because it’s totally possible to eliminate Hamas, just like how we eliminated the Taliban and the Viet Cong. Guerilla groups like this are fueled by war, especially ones with this many atrocities against civilians. If the war isn’t going to stop until Hamas is gone get ready to either genocide Palestine or get in a never ending quagmire, pretty easy to guess what netanyahu’s government prefers.


  • Where, I’m in SF and can barely find anything under 20% . I ask at the dispensary what’s there lowest percent strain and they usually point me to stuff in the high teens. Found some shit that was 14% a couple weeks ago and bought an ounce of it because I knew I wasn’t gonna find anything that low for a while.

    I’m finding myself longing for the prohibition days in college where the highest shit we got was 9%.


  • I would never pressure anyone to smoke, I just offer and pass it around until someone says there good. It’s just that I don’t know there tolerance and I’m not going to tell someone they can’t handle something, that’s there decision. I’ll tell them the percentage/mg but like I said they probably don’t know / remember there limit or tolerance as well. The person doing it has to figure out these things themselves because it effects everyone differently, but if they don’t use it enough to figure that out they’re just going to end up having a bad time.




  • If it’s not the right way to go about it then how should we do it? Like I said in the beginning no politician is going to advocate for public transit when all there constituency drives, and the only thing that’s going to get people to not drive is to add more friction to driving, which will require making drivers lives more difficult.

    Also this isn’t insurance companies profiteering, they are currently in the red due to increased claims caused by severe weather events from climate change. To lower insurance costs would require subsidies, which we shouldn’t be using on a means of transport that is destructive to the environment.

    As for the sweatshop argument let me spell it out since you seem a bit dense: the western lifestyle, including the working class, is subsidized by the exploitation of both the working class of the third world as well as the environment. Stopping that exploitation will require increasing the cost of living for westerners. If you stop sweat shop labor that working class mother of 3 will have to pay more for her kids shoes. If you end gas subsidies and add a carbon tax that working class mother of 3 will have to pay more for gas. If you don’t subsidize car insurance that mother of 3 will have to pay more for that. All of these would add to the burden of that mother but they will also alleviate the suffering of those in the third world and future generations significantly more. There are also ways to alleviate the burden of the mother too: universal childcare, paid maternity leave, affordable public housing, federal jobs guarantee etc. that don’t require incentivizing destructive lifestyles and forms of production.


  • So much name calling and so little argument. This same “what about the first world working class” argument can be made about ending gas subsidies or adding gas/carbon taxes. It can also be made about increasing labor standards, and thus costs of goods produced, in the third world. “If we don’t use sweatshop labor to produce shoes than a working class person in the u.s. might have to pay double for there shoes, and if you don’t feel bad for them then your heartless”. Not everything that is good for the first world working class is good for the working class as a whole.

    The “corporations are actually the problem” argument completely ignores the fact that those corporations are emitting that much to meet western demands for consumption.

    The fact remains westerners and Americans especially need to drive way less and consume way less if we want to prevent climate change. That means if your lifestyle relies on driving and consuming that amount you’ll need to change your lifestyle. That will be painful, but not as painful as the horrors the people of the third world will suffer if we don’t.


  • You have to have a pretty limited view of humanity to think this is uncaring. Higher insurance costs and people driving less is mostly just inconvenient for people in rich developed nations. Meanwhile the climate change mostly caused by the excessive pollution of those people is and will cause even more suffering due to severe weather events, drought, famine etc. This will disproportionately effect the most vulnerable people in developing and poor countries which have contributed way less to climate change. Look at a map of per capital emissions then look at one for countries that will suffer the most due to climate change and tell me how that is fair or humane.

    But yeah, I’m unsympathetic, go on and tell a person dying of heat in India whose never even driven a car how I’m inhumane for not feeling more sad about you paying more for car insurance, cunt.


  • Report says a large part of it is due to increases in severe weather events due to climate change so I guess you reap what you sow. Still doesn’t begin to capture the costs of car usage but at least it’s a start. Sucks for lower income people who need a car but we need things like this to push people away from car ownership and onto public transit otherwise the inertia of car dependence will stimy any efforts to improve public transit.

    Inb4 “but public transit sucks right now I need a car”, yes it does but no politician is going to invest in making it better if everyone’s driving. We need to push people onto public transit so they can experience how bad it is and pressure there representatives to improve it. If we don’t the status quo will remain, the planet will get warmer, more severe weather events will happen and people will die.




  • Where is this reasoning that “Biden should withdraw” is a Russian talking point coming from besides the paranoid delusions of liberals who blame everything bad on Russia. Putin knows even less then us on whether Biden withdrawing would be good or bad for trump.

    It’s not even like this is a fringe idea any more, members of the house are calling for him to step down and even pelosi thinks it’s a legitimate question, are they Russian trolls? We need to have a serious discussion on this and not dismiss the other side as a psyop like alex Jones, otherwise we’re gonna let inertia carry us to a loss like in 2016.


  • This isn’t 2020 though, at this point in 2020 Biden had a 8 point lead on Trump and even then he only won a narrow victory in the electoral college with Pennsylvania, Arizona and Wisconsin, now he’s down by 2 points overall and down even worse in those swing states. Then he was a relative unknown and people were willing to give him a shot against the known evil of trump . Now people have gotten to see him and they do not like what they see, his approval rating is worse then Trump’s was at the depths of the pandemic.