• 1 Post
  • 60 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
    21
    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.


  • Not_mikey@slrpnk.nettoTechnology@lemmy.world*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    It will eventually have to happen, cars, including evs, are not sustainable, at least at the current levels of usage. If you look at any climate report looking into it the choice is between Americans driving a lot less or severe climate change. I hope murica will make the right choice but the more we tie cars to ideas of freedom and peace of mind the harder that choice will be. It will be tough to fight considering the tens of thousands of hours of car ads most Americans are exposed to pushing that narrative, so it will require just as much reinforcement on the negatives of cars, traffic fatalities, CO2 emissions, airborne micro plastics from tires, maintenance and repair costs, obesity, sprawled cities, etc.

    It may not happen in our lifetime, or at least when your healthy enough to bike/hike , but eventually we’ll have to transition away from personal cars. Id prefer to build towards that future now for the reasons listed above but if you want to delay that’s fine, you’ll just have to explain to your grandkids why you did.


  • Yeah maybe there are are 2000 mountains, but how many have mountain bike trails? If there are trails then there is probably some organization maintaining them like the state or national park service who can also run the shuttles. Shuttles are also pretty cheap and can stop at multiple trail heads based off requests. You can also rotate where the shuttles go each day / week so if there’s a more obscure trail/mountain then you can just wait until it comes up in the schedule. The towns would also probably want to run the shuttles as well since it will bring business to the area.

    Ok, let’s assume we want less people on the mountain, what gives you the right to go to the mountain then? Because you can afford a car? That doesn’t seem fair. Also most people have a car so it’s not restricting that many people. If we say only 30 people should go to the mountain a day that’s way easier to enforce if we say only 2 shuttles of 15 are allowed. It’s also fairer as who gets to go is just determined by whoever signs up first, as opposed to whether someone owns something.

    I think many people would like to socialize. There’s a loneliness epidemic and many people are looking for friends but don’t know where to meet them. If I was looking for friends with common interests like mountain biking the shuttle up would be a great place to meet them. Just because I want to get away from civilization doesn’t mean I want to get away from socializing, I hike regularly with groups of people and they mostly enhance the experience. If you aren’t into that that’s fine too, just put on your headphones ignore everyone and set off on the trail solo, nothing stopping you from doing that.

    For the last point like I said usage can be controlled, even better then cars, but assuming the same usage a shuttle is less pollution then multiple cars. If like you said there are 5-6 cars at a particular trail head then one shuttle carrying all those people will cause less air and noise pollution and make it safer for animals.


  • Not_mikey@slrpnk.nettoTechnology@lemmy.world*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    No I haven’t lived in rural America but most Americans haven’t either. Most live in the suburbs, cities or towns. It’s like saying people need to eat less sugar and we should stop using it for every food and people saying “what about the diabetics who need sugar” yeah they do but that’s not the majority of people. We can make exceptions for them while also overhauling our food industry to remove this thing that’s causing health problems for most people.

    As for the mountain bike scenario ideally you would take a train to a town near the trail and then the town can have a shuttle up to the mountain. If we did fully invest in public transit this wouldn’t add too much to your trip and has some other benefits.

    • This would be good for the park and wildlife in general as less traffic would make it easier for animals to migrate. Less roadkill

    • This would lower the amount of development needed in the park as parking lots wouldn’t be necessary.

    • It would make mountain biking more accessible for people who don’t have a car or can’t drive.

    • It would make it more social, you could meet people on the shuttle on the way up, if there are regulars then a community could form.

    • It would reduce the amount of air and noise pollution.



  • Not_mikey@slrpnk.nettoTechnology@lemmy.world*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    That would work if we invested as much into public transit as into cars. This goes back to designing cities for public transit instead of cars. If we did that with the money we currently are putting into cars we could have high frequency metro lines where inner city interstate / highway routes and high speed rail for inter city interstate/highway routes along with frequent bus service in the cities/towns on the lines. We think public transit is inherently slow and unreliable but that’s because we never invest enough money to make it fast and reliable.




  • 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.