There's a reason why it's taken so seriously in China, Singapore, and so on. They've read a history book.
I was getting some incense cones for this cool 3d printed dragon I bought that breathes incense smoke, and two of the smells were frankincense and myrrh. With christmas coming of course I had to pick up those.
It shocked me how much frankincense smells exactly like women's perfume.
It shocked me how much frankincense smells exactly like women's perfume.
Never ask a woman her weight
A man his income
A politician if they cheated on a mortgage application
Lol
A man his income
A politician if they cheated on a mortgage application
Lol
She isn't a thicko, she's a wealthy, highly educated young woman playing the part of a black wigger because it plays to her base and her opposition.
A lot of things that demo really well fail in practice.
The problem is that demo environments are limited and don't involve your own company data, which tends to be ugly and sloppy. That's where good humans come in, we can automatically carry context no LLM can, at least at the moment.
Since the information you're looking for isn't trained into the llm, it won't be able to just give you the right answer, but for most companies you also don't have enough data to train an LLM. Same problem with the similarly exciting but ultimately largely ignored "big data". Most companies aren't Google with everything on the web saved, and their LLM sucks.
The problem is that demo environments are limited and don't involve your own company data, which tends to be ugly and sloppy. That's where good humans come in, we can automatically carry context no LLM can, at least at the moment.
Since the information you're looking for isn't trained into the llm, it won't be able to just give you the right answer, but for most companies you also don't have enough data to train an LLM. Same problem with the similarly exciting but ultimately largely ignored "big data". Most companies aren't Google with everything on the web saved, and their LLM sucks.
The average income in my house is pretty high, but if you remove me from the question it's zero because most of the people in my house make 0.
It's a fork of pleroma. For a while it had additional features over pleroma such as quote posting but it's been somewhat stagnant for a while so I'm not sure there's actually any advantages at this point or if pleroma proper already has the new features. At some point I'm planning to migrate back to pleroma, but everything works pretty well for me so it's not very high priority.
https://github.com/Wack0/entii-for-workcubes
Someone ported Windows NT for PowerPC to the Wii. It works, too.
People go "How do people fall for scams on the Internet?", the real answer is "Because a lot of crazy things aren't scams!"
Someone ported Windows NT for PowerPC to the Wii. It works, too.
People go "How do people fall for scams on the Internet?", the real answer is "Because a lot of crazy things aren't scams!"
Every year, it becomes easier to become a millionaire, but every year it matters less and less because a million dollars is less and less. Eventually, a millionaire will be someone on minimum wage.
Patel always looks so surprised. Like "what the shit you guys actually made me head of the FBI?!"
Honestly, even the COVID shot was insanely harsh. I slept a full 24 hours with a fever with it, and my dad had to quit a job he has lined up because it knocked him on his ass for a month. Then we all got COVID anyway!
Neither of us are Americans, I just used it as an example we can both relate to. Unfortunately, as Rammstein sang, we're all living in America, so American politics get exported to every corner of the globe regardless of a national history. You know about it whether you like it or not.
A lot of the work I'm doing is taking my somewhat alien frame, and trying to translate it into something you'd understand. Considering I haven't published meditations on post-metamodern superpositional epistemology yet, it isn't reasonable to use those tools directly without making my somewhat long posts chapter length, so relating it to examples and mental frames we both can understand is the only way we can have a meaningful conversation.
Directly applicable to me, Ottawa wants to blame me for their historic actions, but the truth is I have more in common with my local indigenous friends and neighbors than "my kind" in Ottawa (or for that matter, in Toronto) who rule. Ottawa apologizes on "my" behalf while queuing up the next intolerable acts they'll apologize for on "my" behalf tomorrow. Meanwhile I get to watch the land my grandfathers lived in stagnate and rot. My grandfathers didn't take anyone's kids, they died young of silicosis. Yet because as an aggregate they could throw my grandparents (and possibly yours as well, did they do anything wrong per se?) into a stack of people so they could take personal responsibility for the actions of a ruling class that oppressed everyone in various ways.
Meanwhile, my paternal grandfather died young and bitter at a government who told him he was fighting the fascists in Italy for freedom only to slowly become totalitarian and choke out all the freedoms he fought for.
A lot of the work I'm doing is taking my somewhat alien frame, and trying to translate it into something you'd understand. Considering I haven't published meditations on post-metamodern superpositional epistemology yet, it isn't reasonable to use those tools directly without making my somewhat long posts chapter length, so relating it to examples and mental frames we both can understand is the only way we can have a meaningful conversation.
Directly applicable to me, Ottawa wants to blame me for their historic actions, but the truth is I have more in common with my local indigenous friends and neighbors than "my kind" in Ottawa (or for that matter, in Toronto) who rule. Ottawa apologizes on "my" behalf while queuing up the next intolerable acts they'll apologize for on "my" behalf tomorrow. Meanwhile I get to watch the land my grandfathers lived in stagnate and rot. My grandfathers didn't take anyone's kids, they died young of silicosis. Yet because as an aggregate they could throw my grandparents (and possibly yours as well, did they do anything wrong per se?) into a stack of people so they could take personal responsibility for the actions of a ruling class that oppressed everyone in various ways.
Meanwhile, my paternal grandfather died young and bitter at a government who told him he was fighting the fascists in Italy for freedom only to slowly become totalitarian and choke out all the freedoms he fought for.
I used to run friendica at first, but the php backend wasn't robust enough and messages got lost on my first hardware. Today I'm running soapbox and rebased.
An example of the point I'm is making is Baltimore schools -- the systemic way of handling illiteracy is to just pass everyone regardless of their math or literacy levels. That makes a lot of people "high school graduates" which the numbers say the black school districts are better than they were due to high graduation rates, but it ignores that they're all illiterate and innumerate (as measured by standardized literacy tests which show some entire schools lack a single graduate who is reading or doing math at grade level). Treating people like the system is them is the problem here. The measures get better, but in reality what just happened was global systemic damage to high school education.
The discussion goes "Oh, we need more black high school graduates because high school graduates in aggregate make more money than non-high school graduates". Those aggregates are true, but by systemetizing that, you don't necessarily ensure those students go off to make more money. Instead, you devalue high school educations and get a situation like the US sees where the university degree becomes the new baseline. This ends up harming all high school students as a whole, at the cost of nominally but not necessarily practically improving the lot of the individual students involved.
The person who is harmed the most by this game is the hardworking and diligent black high school student who does the work to earn a high school diploma honestly, only to have their work devalued by a system that hoped to elevate blacks, resulting in individual harm.
(Baltimore just happens to have a lot of majority black areas which is why it ends up being a focus here)
https://foxbaltimore.com/news/project-baltimore/state-test-results-23-baltimore-schools-have-zero-students-proficient-in-math-jovani-patterson-maryland-comprehensive-assessment-program-maryland-governor-wes-moore
The discussion goes "Oh, we need more black high school graduates because high school graduates in aggregate make more money than non-high school graduates". Those aggregates are true, but by systemetizing that, you don't necessarily ensure those students go off to make more money. Instead, you devalue high school educations and get a situation like the US sees where the university degree becomes the new baseline. This ends up harming all high school students as a whole, at the cost of nominally but not necessarily practically improving the lot of the individual students involved.
The person who is harmed the most by this game is the hardworking and diligent black high school student who does the work to earn a high school diploma honestly, only to have their work devalued by a system that hoped to elevate blacks, resulting in individual harm.
(Baltimore just happens to have a lot of majority black areas which is why it ends up being a focus here)
https://foxbaltimore.com/news/project-baltimore/state-test-results-23-baltimore-schools-have-zero-students-proficient-in-math-jovani-patterson-maryland-comprehensive-assessment-program-maryland-governor-wes-moore
If you wanted an account here I'll approve it no problem. I know, the 500 character limit seems really annoying.
I spent a lot of time laying things out to hopefully clear things up.
The confusion here isn’t personal. It comes from trying to use clean, totalising categories on a reality that is messy, layered, and often internally contradictory. My own framework starts from the assumption that paradox and inconsistency are normal features of the world, not bugs to be eliminated.
When I say “stacking fails,” I’m not saying statistics or population-level analysis are useless. Aggregates obviously exist and are useful at the level they’re meant for. The problem is a different one: stacking people into categories necessarily requires prejudice (Not in a moral sense, but in the sense that you must assume everything about someone based on a limited selection criteria). To reduce prejudice and get things more correct you need to add more attributes to separate people into those categories to make it more accurate, but in so doing the less coherent that category becomes. At sufficiently high resolution, you are no longer describing a group in any meaningful way, you are describing an individual.
That is not a mathematical failure. It is a categorical one. The error happens when you try to take that compressed, simplified image of a population and apply it back onto real, complex human beings.
This is why I am cautious about any framework, including intersectionality, that emphasises the stacking of people into identity variables. If a person is the intersection of dozens or hundreds of factors (history, class, ancestry, education, geography, culture, trauma, opportunity, neurotype, family, etc.), then no small handful of those factors can stand in for the whole person. The more seriously you take that idea, the more it breaks down low-resolution identity thinking. Your piles of people are almost random because even if in aggregate they look a certain way, individually they can be quite different. You can stack into more categories to try to capture people in a more robust model, but as you continue you end up with a near-infinitely complex model, with n piles to represent n people.
This also exposes how unstable many of our categories really are. Ethnicity is not clean or consistent. Language, names, appearance, and culture are shaped by environment, migration, class, and historical accident as much as ancestry. Mexico is a nation, not an ethnicity. A single person can descend from both conquered and conqueror, enslaved and enslaver, oppressed and powerful. These labels collapse under even mild historical or genetic scrutiny.
At the same time, it is obvious that different people experience both advantage and disadvantage, often simultaneously, depending on which variable you examine. The same person can be privileged in one context and marginalised in another. This should make us extremely wary of flattening anyone into a single identity-based narrative.
The real danger appears when systems, not just people, take these simplified categories and operationalise them. Institutions, governments, policies, algorithms, and bureaucracies cannot deal with full human complexity. They are forced to compress people into boxes, risk profiles, types, and groups. Harm happens when those abstractions are mistaken for the actual human beings they are meant to represent.
Governance doesn't necessarily require universal aggregation. That's literally an invention of the modernist era. Before the beginning of the modernist era and the French Revolution, the concept that everyone in a nation needed to be standardized and modularized was not real. One of the reasons for systemic bigotry is that systems were allowed to expand and standardize and make assumptions about everyone living under them, whereas before that governance was more localized. There were problems with that approach as well, but different problems. With a modernist epistemology, this truth is quite invisible, because it's so strongly built into our worldview.
History is full of examples where aggregate observations were converted into essential rules about individuals. In the United States, the history of slavery and race turned a population-level historical condition into a permanent, inherited social status for millions of unrelated individuals. That was not science. It was the misuse of abstraction backed by power.
So I am not rejecting pattern recognition. I am rejecting the move where patterns are treated as people, when a simplified model becomes an identity, and an identity becomes a fate. The aggregate is not the individual. A label is not a human being.
The confusion here isn’t personal. It comes from trying to use clean, totalising categories on a reality that is messy, layered, and often internally contradictory. My own framework starts from the assumption that paradox and inconsistency are normal features of the world, not bugs to be eliminated.
When I say “stacking fails,” I’m not saying statistics or population-level analysis are useless. Aggregates obviously exist and are useful at the level they’re meant for. The problem is a different one: stacking people into categories necessarily requires prejudice (Not in a moral sense, but in the sense that you must assume everything about someone based on a limited selection criteria). To reduce prejudice and get things more correct you need to add more attributes to separate people into those categories to make it more accurate, but in so doing the less coherent that category becomes. At sufficiently high resolution, you are no longer describing a group in any meaningful way, you are describing an individual.
That is not a mathematical failure. It is a categorical one. The error happens when you try to take that compressed, simplified image of a population and apply it back onto real, complex human beings.
This is why I am cautious about any framework, including intersectionality, that emphasises the stacking of people into identity variables. If a person is the intersection of dozens or hundreds of factors (history, class, ancestry, education, geography, culture, trauma, opportunity, neurotype, family, etc.), then no small handful of those factors can stand in for the whole person. The more seriously you take that idea, the more it breaks down low-resolution identity thinking. Your piles of people are almost random because even if in aggregate they look a certain way, individually they can be quite different. You can stack into more categories to try to capture people in a more robust model, but as you continue you end up with a near-infinitely complex model, with n piles to represent n people.
This also exposes how unstable many of our categories really are. Ethnicity is not clean or consistent. Language, names, appearance, and culture are shaped by environment, migration, class, and historical accident as much as ancestry. Mexico is a nation, not an ethnicity. A single person can descend from both conquered and conqueror, enslaved and enslaver, oppressed and powerful. These labels collapse under even mild historical or genetic scrutiny.
At the same time, it is obvious that different people experience both advantage and disadvantage, often simultaneously, depending on which variable you examine. The same person can be privileged in one context and marginalised in another. This should make us extremely wary of flattening anyone into a single identity-based narrative.
The real danger appears when systems, not just people, take these simplified categories and operationalise them. Institutions, governments, policies, algorithms, and bureaucracies cannot deal with full human complexity. They are forced to compress people into boxes, risk profiles, types, and groups. Harm happens when those abstractions are mistaken for the actual human beings they are meant to represent.
Governance doesn't necessarily require universal aggregation. That's literally an invention of the modernist era. Before the beginning of the modernist era and the French Revolution, the concept that everyone in a nation needed to be standardized and modularized was not real. One of the reasons for systemic bigotry is that systems were allowed to expand and standardize and make assumptions about everyone living under them, whereas before that governance was more localized. There were problems with that approach as well, but different problems. With a modernist epistemology, this truth is quite invisible, because it's so strongly built into our worldview.
History is full of examples where aggregate observations were converted into essential rules about individuals. In the United States, the history of slavery and race turned a population-level historical condition into a permanent, inherited social status for millions of unrelated individuals. That was not science. It was the misuse of abstraction backed by power.
So I am not rejecting pattern recognition. I am rejecting the move where patterns are treated as people, when a simplified model becomes an identity, and an identity becomes a fate. The aggregate is not the individual. A label is not a human being.