Yeah, that kind of thing requires reasoning, and it goes awry almost immediately. It’s still pretty useful for generating snippets of boilerplate or finding stuff in big chunks of code, but I more or less gave up on having it actually create anything nontrivial in code.
Oh… yeah, you might have a point. Beyond a certain size of repeated things, it sometimes goes haywire, I’ve seen that.
Converting from one format to another, it can do like gangbusters. I wouldn’t trust it to summarize stuff from its training data, it can do a little bit better with summarizing stuff you give it, but just mechanically finding the text and putting it verbatim into a different markup it’s pretty capable with.
Here’s where they said what I summarized as “Europe not buying fossil fuels from Russia is a catastrophe for Europe”:
Now, with the exclusion of Gazprombank, the bank handling most of the international transactions for Gazprom (the largest gas producing company in Russia) from the SWIFT inter-bank messaging system, and Ukraine unwilling to renew transit permits through its territories, the cheapest form of natural gas supplies to Europe will likely dwindle to a mere trickle. That will leave Europe with expensive LNG from Qatar and the US, as well as some pipeline gas from Norway and through Turkiye, which is Russian gas in a roundabout, third-party way. As always: higher complexity comes at a higher price — a direct consequence of the EU’s economic war on its largest energy supplier.
Will this lead to a repeat of the 2022 price rally then? Hardly. As one can see from the extent of layoffs cited above, Europe is deindustrializing fast. Half of the continent’s steel, glass and aluminum capacity, together with fertilizer and chemical plants have already left in the first wave (in late 2022 and early 2023). Now, it’s time for the automotive and machine manufacturing sector to go, together with the “renewables” and battery businesses. Well, energy is (still) the economy, it seems. As industrial demand recedes, however, so does consumer demand. With mass layoffs, and in response to a huge drop in the purchasing power of their money, people started to buy less and less products made with expensive energy, and turned down the heating in their homes even further.
Here’s what they said that I summarized as “they must reverse course as soon as possible and stop trying to depend on renewable energy”:
In light of the above it’s even harder to understand how European elites could be so irresponsible. Instead of revising their energy / foreign policy, they have doubled down on “renewables” even as they severed all vital links to their primary source of cheap fossil fuels. Contrary to its vital economic interests, Europe has tied its import dependent economy to a fast sinking “rules based world order”, together with LNG supplies from the U.S. with diminishing reserves and a soon to be peaking production. Instead of doing everything to prevent a war with their biggest neighbor, and to find a cooperative coping mechanism to deal with the coming long decline in world energy production, the EU and NATO remained hell bent on expansion and sabotaged every deal along the way — together with the many opportunities for peace. Even as the war is being lost as we speak, there are still no talks about building a lasting peace taking both side’s security considerations into account. Instead, we hear more ‘peace through strength’, ‘deterrence’ and sending European troops into Ukraine to freeze the conflict… Only to prepare the country for a renewed offensive few years later. Just like many times before in the old continent’s battered history confrontation was chosen over cooperation, ultimately leaving Europe in ruins and in a deep economic turmoil. Only this time, in the absence of a cheap and abundant new energy source, the downturn could all too easily become permanent.
That also covers some of “since it doesn’t work,” as well does what I already included and satirized at some length, the accusation that connecting solar panels to your grid will destroy equipment because when a cloud goes across the sun, the whole equipment suffers some kind of catastrophe.
I’m comfortable with my summary, in other words. The whole thing is so long-winded that it’s hard to boil down to simple statements, but it’s actually uncommonly direct in what it’s saying for this type of propaganda.
I don’t know anything about it, but clicking on “Trending” and scrolling for a little while gave me the Facebook horrors.
!newcommunities@lemmy.world is a very common one. I’ll put a plug also for !communities@ponder.cat. I also tend to look at the lists of communities from “good” instances and subscribe en masse to a bunch of them all at once if I like the vibe of the instance overall.
You are right that there really isn’t as good a way as there “should” be, maybe, but that’s what people do and it seems to work okay.
It is a common task to figure out who should be directly pipelined for the central education pathway and who needs to be isolated from it lest they become pointlessly disruptive to others’ learning, as they have demonstrated that they will interrupt with silly ideas
And all of a sudden, it all snapped into focus.
I’ve been involved in education for almost all my adult life. The number of times I can remember having to do something like this is once, for one person, in all of that time.
Way up at the beginning, I said “In non-authoritarian contexts” certain modes of interaction are common, and you asked, “What on earth are you talking about.” This is what I’m talking about. It’s very strange and inhuman, to me, for the teacher to say that someone’s ideas are silly, and for that reason they need to be removed from the class before they disrupt everyone else’s “learning.” One of the most important parts of teaching is understanding where people are coming from, actually truly coming from, so you can address their current perceptions directly, so they can understand. They might be right or partially right, they might be wrong, or they might be silly. It’s fine. Another critical early stage of the process is to earn their respect, demonstrate that you know what you’re talking about, so that in a genuine sense they’ll want to learn from you. That can be incredibly hard, because there’s not really a system for it. It has to be a human thing. If you can do that, though, everything after is easy. The students are coming to you because their current understanding isn’t there, presumably, and because they want to fix that. If you can show them you’re qualified to improve their understanding, then of course they will listen to you instead of being “silly” as you say it.
If you say something, and they don’t understand it or don’t agree with it, and then you abandon them and say they have to be separated before someone else hears what they have to say, that’s a massive red flag to me. It might be for reasons of time or organization, you don’t necessarily need to hear out completely every beginner idea that every single student has to say. But also… presumably, they’re there because they have some interest in what you’re teaching. Hopefully. If during the course of the interaction, they’re espousing ideas you think are wrong, they’re probably not the only person in the class that thinks that way. Some other people just might not be saying it. If you can address things in a productive way, then you give everyone else in the class the chance to hear out the exchange of ideas. That’s hugely instructive. That’s actual education. Hopefully, your ideas are solid enough and you have the skill to address it in a way where overall it’s pretty clear that your ideas are the “right” ones. To everyone else, if not to the “silly” student, or not to them right away.
I don’t truly know anything at all about your method of teaching. But like I say, this makes it all come clearly to me. You’ve been sort of giving me orders about how I am required to engage with you. You’re trying to “instruct” me, which is a fine thing to do obviously, but you clearly haven’t earned the right to do that, in my eyes. I was confused about why you kept approaching the interaction as if you had, and I needed to “get with the program” and treat you that way, but again, now it makes sense. You’re treating me like one of your students.
Most people work in this way that I’m describing. If you want genuine respect from your students, you need to engage with them as human beings, and not become so aggrieved if they’re not taking part in the process with completely correct ideas already formed, or with “correct” behavior already in place. Most people operate by respect, not by obedience, although certain types of coercion will cause them to obediently fake it. All you’ll do by demanding obedience whether or not the respect is there, though, is produce insincere students, which is a terrible thing. And you’ll also miss the chance to actually educate someone, if their inner ideas don’t match the things you’re trying to teach them.
My guy: You raised an issue with how I was participating. I explained why I was doing it, but also offered to correct it, admitting that you kind of had a point. You said you weren’t going to count that as good faith, but that I was “free to try again.”
I don’t know what sort of person you are trying to engage with, but it is some sort of obedient robot or sniveling quisling. I wish you luck in finding that person. They would probably also respond well to being told that it’s not your job to find sources for your statement, but their job to find sources for your statements. I think you will have difficulty in finding such a person but like I said I wish you luck.
I’m not going to count this as a good faith response
I’ll have to try to find a way to carry on regardless. Best of luck.
You have a valid point that I’ve been ignoring things you’ve said or questions you ask. Are there any of the unanswered questions that you want me to take some real time and answer for you? Part of my not “getting with the program” so to speak, it seems, is like I say that I simply don’t believe you based on my little bit of investigations so far, so I’m focusing my attention on seeing if you’re trustworthy before taking anything of the very large and varied number of claims you’re making seriously.
I don’t really consider myself obligated to chase down each and every new thing you bring up in each message, investing hours of time absorbing your sources in detail while you airily discard any of my sources claiming that they are propaganda. But, like I say, it’s not an unreasonable complaint, and if you want to bring up a couple of the unanswered questions now, I’m happy to spend a quick moment addressing them if you want.
This is seemingly in response to me repeatedly noting your selective responses, but it doesn’t address it at all.
It absolutely addresses it. It explains why I’m doing it. You just don’t like my explanation.
Edit: PS I’m not reading the rest of what you wrote until you can demonstrate basic good faith.
Okey dokey.
I think you should share this way of looking at security with some security professionals, and see what they say about it.
I know some people who recently wrote an article, for example, which said among some other things:
The simple answer is that you can’t and shouldn’t trust either free or paid VPN providers. … For some, using a VPN can be as dangerous as not using one.
And your government can seek grounds to demand access to your browsing data anytime it wants — including retroactively — which can also include demands to access data from VPN providers, defeating the very point of the privacy you sought.
Security experts consider the Tor network the gold standard of private browsing because it allows you to access the internet without censorship or surveillance.
Instead of relying on a single tunnel to hide your internet traffic, Tor works by encrypting and routing users’ internet traffic through thousands of servers around the world, shielding their activity from other servers and the outside world. Because of Tor’s implementation, no single Tor server can see your browsing data. That means even if a Tor server is compromised, the attacker still cannot access the users’ browsing data within.
Because Tor is open source, anyone can inspect its source code to ensure that it’s safe to run.
And so on.
You’re not wrong that a VPN will shield your non-web traffic, and if you’re doing something sensitive outside of HTTPS and the associated DNS, then Tor won’t help. It also won’t prevent someone from stealing your car or breaking into your house. And, the same very serious vulnerabilities that apply to free or commercial VPN providers will apply to all of that non-web traffic.
The same article with the above useful tidbits of information also includes a guide to setting up your own VPN, which can be made actually extremely secure against some threats, if you do want to secure non-web traffic. Tor is still much better at protecting your web traffic, assuming that you’re doing something for which it is suitable.
Hope this helps. Let me know if you have any questions.
Tor is for oppressive countries where anonymity and misdirection are more important than performance. It’s literally worse than a VPN in every single way unless you’re concerned with a major country coming for your head.
So it’s… … more secure? I generally agree with this statement. The performance is worse, which makes it unsuitable for some things.
VPN is not “a browser”, it’s a network stack. It is separate from whatever you use for a browser. If you use Tor, you still use a browser.
Yes, which makes it kind of silly that you originally highlighted a vulnerability in the browser as a problem with Tor. Tor is also a network stack, but it’s most often used through a bundled-in specific Tor browser, which sometimes has vulnerabilities. Most VPNs don’t bundle a browser, but the browser that’s using the VPN still sometimes has vulnerabilities. They stand in exactly the same relationship, in terms of vulnerabilities in the browser. Neither one is better than the other. That’s the point that I was making. I can absolutely assure you that I understand the technologies involved.
Actually, I should have said specifically: It is true that Tor is slower and unsuitable for some applications, streaming and torrenting being two of them. It was more your statement that it is somehow less secure that I was disagreeing with.
VPN-using browsers
VPN is not “a browser”
Diesel-burning cars
Diesel is not “a car”
See how language works? You need to relax man.
I typed up a long sarcastic response as to why this isn’t true, but I think I’m going to let you keep believing these things. If you think VPN-using browsers do not have vulnerabilities that need updates to fix actively exploited vulnerabilities, or that data is protected between the exit node of a VPN and the end path, then I’m going to let you keep thinking those things. I’ll never stand between a person and their dreams.
You shouldn’t use it for torrenting
True.
it’s frequently targeted by intelligence agencies for IP unmasking
I would take issue with “frequently,” in the grand scheme of things, but yes. It is a sufficient level of protection that state intelligence agencies have to have specific methods, which sometimes work and sometimes don’t, to try to specifically attack one specific actor on Tor if they care enough to do it. In contrast to a VPN, which any bumbling fuckhead in more or less any jurisdiction can generally defeat with a single subpeona, and even a fairly stupid intelligence agency can defeat without blinking.
Tor sucks
Your axioms don’t add up to your theorem. There are cases where a VPN is better, torrenting being one of them, that part is true.
I think the necessity for moderators to curate the experience for the members of the community is overrated.
I’ve seen very selected cases where that kind of thing is done to good effect. /r/AskHistorians is the most obvious example. I’ve seen a whole lot of cases where there are moderators who are abusing their ability to control the conversation, going well beyond just keeping everything on the rails, and deciding for themselves what people in the comments are and aren’t allowed to say.
Personally, I think merging the comments threads from multiple communities would be a clear benefit, in part specifically because it would eliminate that ability for moderators to decide how they want to shape the comments to look like.