I had an experience with a male coworker. I am a man too.

He asked me because he had a USB and he wanted to put the windows iso onto it but it didn’t work. Eventually he used the media creator (or whatever it is called) but he asked if I knew what the issue was. After a lot of questions, I had figured it out.

He wanted to create a bootable USB by drag and drop the iso onto the usb and the usb was formated in fat32, so the iso was too big for the filesystem.

In that conversation, he said multiple times that he knows about this or that and that he knows computers, e.g. when I asked about the size of the usb (maybe it was a very old USB with like 4gb storage). And I could tell how he was slightly offended by some questions.

Also please note, he was “following” the Microsoft tutorial

Edit: typos fixed

I love how this paints the affirmation as some random unprovoked act and not the counter reaction to the harassment, because if they would paint it as what is it, a counter reaction to the harassment, then it would become obvious that the “live and let live” approach is under attack by bigots and the affirmation is an attempt to counter the attack and reinstate “live and let live”.

LLM are so useful that the company needs to advice the government on what they could use the LLM for, after years of the public having access to the tools.

Just that master doesn’t actually makes much sense in most git workflows.

If you understand master like you would understand the master/slave relationship in old tech, then of course, master seems to make sense until you realize that there is no slave in that sense or in name. Additional, master is rarely doing anything but having release or hot fixes being merged into it. Arguably dev is the master of the branches.

In other words, master was always a bad name. It is silly to rename it because “racism” but it is at least equally silly to act like master is a much better name than “main” or “live” or “prod” or … Fuck, the list is long.

He was young.

Being young, is nice. Mostly because you don’t have to deal with a lot of the issues that e.g. a house, children and maybe the marriage is not as loving as it used to be.

So he misses being young, but instead of realizing that he was just young. He thinks about what was different and as your responses imply, he blames foreigner for the change. As you expressed that he thinks of you as just a girl, he is probably also sexist and the 50s were much more sexist as it still is.

In other words, culture changed, he didn’t and he is old.

I don’t see anyone making the claim that it is bad and for all, we know it is op’s swing.

Why are you acting like someone said it is bad? Honestly, it feels like it is projection over your own shame over your preferences. But obviously I don’t know and I don’t claim that it is the case. Just saying, it makes that impression to me.

Do I lose 100 points if I say “merica! Fuck yeah!” When I hear about us news?

That is not true. Bielefeld is not real.

That framing is bs. We have heard of ai screen tools long before there was any ai that would write a half way decent resume.

Well the average is normed to 100. So 120 is not the minimum for above average. The top 9% of population would be above 115iq.

While high IQ is more of a diagnosis than anything, the statistics are real. I don’t know why you don’t want to consider top 9% as “high”.

What is high in your opinion?

I am not promoting an idea. I am just stating simple facts. Just to contextualize the issue. People are underappreciating the relative peacefulness of protests.

Guys, remember protests are the alternative. Even the volent ones are the alternative.

Remember what humans did before we protested.

100% that is why they only appreciate realistic art styles and I guess super trendy stuff like ghibli.

And of course, “appreciate” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.

They are dehumanizing everyone else too.

Can you think of anyone precise and clear enough in their speech that some “needless” repetition and context wouldn’t drastically improve your understanding of what they say?

Can you imagine how upset they would be if you took them by their very word and not what they meant?

In their mind, authors (and probably everyone else) are machines. The kindness of trying to truly understand them is not given. They should be “flawless”.

I have read books in which the definition of certain words get redefined to be more precise and clear in the communication while making things less verbose. I don’t think an ai summary will reliably properly introduce me to the definition on page 100 of a book that took the previous 99 pages to set up the required definitions to understand the definition it gives on page 100.

But I could be wrong.

And electronic voting goes against the principles of a fair and free election.

One of the principles of such an election is that a layman can understand the process to verify the legitimacy of the election. The average citizens needs to be able to understand the election process.

Electronic voting either allows the state to track who voted for what and/or allows people to vote multiple times, or it is not possible for a layman to verify the legitimacy of the election.

Electronic voting are just plain anti democratic.

Edit: I am ignoring here the simple fact that closed source code is unverifiable and any voting machine running with e.g. windows would return unverifiable results. So I am ignoring the issues of the software stack of this machines, which we shouldn’t.

How deep do you need to be in the propaganda to think like that?

Well, there we have a disagreement. I don’t think people press on like indicates a careful consideration of the argument and understanding of the argument presented. Look at how popular some of e.g. Elon musk’s dumbest posts are.

I am judging the comments as their display some understanding and you are probably right that there is a bias in the dataset.

In the end of the day, my argument boils down to, Do you believe that the average person saying “capitalism is human nature” uses your definition of capitalism? Or that they are just vaguely reference something that they don’t really want to argue?

I don’t know what you are trying to tell me.

Why is the ratio important? Is a anti-capitalism take on .ml being popular evidence for anything that is relevant to my comment or the discussion at large? If I had to guess, I would say you imply that people who up vote understand the difference between trading with currency and capitalism, which I would generally doubt that assumption. People liking trump posts probably don’t understand traffics. You get my point. Additionally, my confusion about the relevance of ratio is properly best highlighted by the fact that my critic was about the meme in general, how that meme gets perceived in e.g. this community is beside the point. Deportation memes are probably well received in trump communities. That doesn’t make them good arguments or an good thing to express. Could you assist me in understanding the relevance?

The second part, I agree with you and I disagree with the statement. Obviously it isn’t without alternatives.

I think this meme is a little unfair. For the sake of this comment, I am assuming that op is 100% correct about his definitions and I want to stress that I don’t claim that “capitalism” is human nature.

Op basically admits in his comments that the general public doesn’t have a good understanding of communism or capitalism and consequently how do define them. E.g. He keeps having to explain the difference between capitalism and trade with currency, highlighting the lack of understanding of what capitalism is.

This should make you question what a person means when they say that capitalism is human nature. Do they mean capitalism or their understanding of it? The answer is obvious.

So what do they mean? Given that people don’t just walk around saying “capitalism is human nature”, it is probably fair to see it as what it attempts to be, a justification. A justification usually follows a critic. And what is that critic? I think it is fair to roughly assume that it is a justification for the usual critic of capitalism. The degradation of human life by encouraging a competitive environment which leads to exploitation and hierarchy. That exploitation is powered by the violence of controlling limited resources.

So the question becomes, could the person saying “capitalism is human nature” mean that humans are competitive hierarchical animals who will use any means to control, oppress and exploit it’s environment, including economical violence. If yes, then the age of capitalism is irrelevant and ancient Rome is probably what the person would identify as what they believe to be human nature.

In short, I think the response in the meme doesn’t accurately engages with the challenge of the claim and would probably fail to convince anyone and probably makes you seem intellectually dishonest from the perspective of the conversation partner.

I don’t believe cowbee is intellectually dishonest, but that they fail to consider the issue from a different perspective, as we all do daily.