MentalEdge

If we're talking about the HBO show, then calling it a documentary is just straight up wrong in the first place.

It's a "based on real events" TV drama that never claimed to be a rigorous retelling of the catastrophe.

There are a ton of immediate differences to reality that anyone even vaguely familiar with soviet history would notice.

Please please please rob Nestle.

They seem to be getting back into it.

There was Alyx, at first. But today there's Deadlock, two more rumoured games, and now this?

Totally. But it can and probably will be used as an excuse for why it's ok to pollute land an air with open goldmines so some company can make gold turd sculptures for rich people to place in their homes as a "conversation piece".

When in reality we should be discussing whether some non-essential industries should get to emit anything at all.

That's what the greenwashing mentioned by the person you replied to means. It's the practice of marketing away the downsides of a product that really shouldn't be possible to rub off. Some things are just inherently wasteful and "offsetting" the waste just means something unavoidable is offset a little less.

Ok, but achieving net zero is not an excuse to not go sub zero if possible.

If we let corporatations continue emitting when they could not be, because an equivalent amount of greenhouse gases got sequestered somehwere, then we're stopping at "not making it worse" when we could be going for "great improvement".

A large part of the marketing around "carbon neutrality" is about placating consumer guilt so people will keep buying things they want but don't actually need.

The messaging around this stuff can and will be twisted into something that attempts to maintain the status quo, emitting at full steam, rather than investing in real improvement.

Such as, you know, producing and consuming less in general.

That you insist on finding another window to climb in through when shown the door isn't as good a look as you seem to think.

"net zero" refers to continuing to emit greenhouse gases and fixing the problem some other way. Carbon capture, carbon credits, whatever.

Zero means actually stopping the emissions in the first place.

Except that net zero is mostly being used as an excuse to keep going with your business, emitting away while paying lip service to the idea of reducing emissions in ways that may or may not actually offset the continued emissions.

AI logos and buttons tend to be "shiny" with a gradient color scheme.

...

Why?

Seriously! Why!?

I don't remotely understand this policy, and it seems that pretty much noone would vote for it if they could avoid doing so.

My argument was and is that neural models don't produce anything truly new. That they can't handle things outside what is outlined by the data they were trained on.

Are you not claiming otherwise?

You say it's possible to guide models into doing new things, and I can see how that's the case, especially if the model is a very big one, meaning it is more likely that it has relevant structures to apply to the task.

But I'm also pretty damn sure they have insurmountable limits. You can't "guide" and LLM into doing image generation, except by having it interact with an image generation model.

Agreed.

But it could become one. Aside from private chats where e2ee is manually enabled, it's all on a server somewhere.

So leave a new one.