Spray them down with microplastics, unnatural dyes, and hazardous chemicals.

Again not every policy has to be reversed in order to start fixing the damage, and not every policy needs to be reversed in general.

This discussion was a fruitless flat circle that nobody else will read anyway. Have a good one.

In a US presidential election, your vote supports Israel no matter what party it is for.

If people are actually interested in choice on this and many other issues, they’ll have to organize to change the electoral process. But this is America so instead we will sit around in threads like these all day pretending that pissing away your vote with Stein will somehow change that when it obviously will not.

I still don’t get why you think occupy died, but regardless it wasn’t because of online shit or coopted lingo.

I’ve bumped into a bunch of you online socialists before and every one of you thinks your efforts made some profound difference when in reality socialism is still a nothing nowhere movement in the US and we get more fascist every election cycle.

Occupy died because of “terminally online bullshit”? I guess that terminally online bullshit is either more effective than what you’re suggesting or your analysis sucks.

Yet as someone who lives in a more diverse democracy (although it has been getting dangerously more polarized in the recent decades), I’m always baffled by this presumption that a candidate deserves someone’s vote by default.

If you live in a democracy where the spoiler effect isn’t an issue, then just be happy, whistle, and move on.

If you live in a democracy with first past the poll elections with an electoral college, then you should understand how the system works and vote accordingly.

The spoiler effect is where you vote for someone (Jill Stein in this case) who you think better aligns with your particular set of policy goals, but since they have no chance of actually winning you help the candidate most opposed to your policy goals (Trump in this case) by subtracting votes from the less aligned candidate (Harris in this case) that actually does stand a chance of winning.

It’s an ironic outcome of voting in our system. By voting for the person most aligned with your preferences you actually help the person least aligned with your preferences.

Trump is worse on genocide and climate and will be assisted greatly by idiots voting for Jill Stein in swing states.

They’ve done research and provided these assholes aren’t on the ballot, people usually choose a ballot-present major party option instead.

Can it already, garbanzo bean.

He also had a goon squad execute a guy in the pcnw because the dude had shot a proud boy and then Trump later bragged about it.

There’s a greater chance someone will see this story and the whiny parents and that will prevent this little creep from getting into Stanford.

I agree, and the whole thing is a shame.

Part of me wants to think it’s just inevitable because industry gets nearly exactly what it wants in this country at all times, but another part of me has a perhaps more hopeful thought which is maybe we could’ve gotten some of those things if we had organized for them.

Maybe a lot of what’s wrong with American policy is that the sane people and the people who want reasonable, good governance of the country just aren’t organized enough and just not connected enough to each other.

Despite the likelihood that the million Karen marches at the height of the pandemic for getting haircuts were astroturfing efforts…there was nobody in the public sphere advocating for reason. I understand that it was risky when we didn’t know about the properties of the virus and such so the crazies were the only ones risking it. But I don’t think this country can have good governance at all until the people who are tired of the crazies organize, unite, and take over.

Reminder of when and why I “entered the chat”:

It seems the GOP can make things plenty worse in a hell of a hurry, but when it comes to righting the wrongs, it’s all too hard.

The point – that you’ve largely conceded above but had to do some kind of interpretive dance first – is that “righting the wrongs” is often harder than making things worse is in a great many circumstances and that’s why they’re able to do it so quickly.

It’s not “all too hard” sarcastically like you seemed to be implying. It’s “all too hard” sincerely and in reality.

I’m sure Biden kept some of Trump’s policies in place, but he didn’t keep in place “take all the kids, break up every family” and then send out his henchmen to go on TV and say “whomp, whomp” when questioned about it.

There are actual situations happening pertaining to immigration that the administration has to handle.

Despite the right-wing bullshit, “the Biden-Harris administration” 🙄 is definitely not an “open borders” administration. I would argue that “open borders” policies are not particularly tenable in the first place.

Keeping in place some policies Trump laid out some of the time does not prevent an administration from having a better stance overall on immigration, nor does it prevent them from at least trying to clean up some of the damage.

In other words, no, you don’t have to repeal every single Trump policy in a public EO signing ceremony as a first order of business in order to fix anything.

I suspect they have their own emulators.

I mean they have old games available for new platforms and have had that for multiple generations. One of the things you get with a Nintendo online subscription is a switch catalog full of a bunch of SNES and NES games for play on the switch.

This is all just speculation. I have no idea how much it would cost for them to build new systems for every playable game in the museum.

Entirely aside from the could argument, I don’t really understand why they would do it.

I’m not redefining anything, I’m just pointing out that intelligence is not as narrow as most people assume, it’s a broad term that encompasses various gradations.

“I’m not redefining anything, I’m just insisting that my definition of the term is the only correct one.”

You’re running a motte-and-bailey here. First you say someone else is definitively “not correct” in their usage of the term, and then you go on to make a more easily defensible argument of “well who is to say what the meaning of the term truly is? It’s a very gray area”.

Then 99% of animal species would not qualify as intelligent.

By some definitions, certainly…and that’s the whole point.

You may rightfully argue that term AI is too broad and that we could narrow it down to mean specifically “human-like” AI, but the truth is, that at this point, in computer science AI already refers to a wide range of systems, from basic decision-making algorithms to complex models like GPTs or neural networks.

I think taken as a whole the term “AI” has more meaning if you take both words in the phrase into account together rather than separately.

For instance, computer opponents in early video games naturally fit the moniker “AI” because even though it obviously does not possess intelligence in the general sense of the term, the developers are trying to artificially fool you into thinking it does.

Ultimately, it’s probably futile to try to rescue the phrase from the downward spiral it is on into meaninglessness, but I do not believe the word “intelligence” necessarily needs to spiral down in concert.

I’m saying that not every bad thing the GOP does is an act of destruction - like the creation of the executive orders Biden destroyed

The simple act of “creating an executive order” isn’t an act of creation / improvement in any sense except for perhaps the most literal and pedantic sense.

Of course it’s as possible to repeal executive orders as it was to issue them in the first place, the point is that much of the damage was already done and some of it is permanent.

Fuck me - I’m honestly ashamed to share a political tent with such a moron, but better you than the Nazis, I suppose.

Like we share tents…you’re probably one of the “Genocide Joe” morons.

Republicans are all anti college until you’re talking the electoral one.

Your body is going to fail eventually, so you might as well stop brushing your teeth and start drinking scotch at breakfast. /s

Them being the original creator of the products doesn’t necessarily imply that they still have running production processes for every product that they ever made.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/intelligence

Simple algorithms are not intelligence. Some modern “AI” we have comes close to fitting some of these definitions, but simple algorithms do not.

We can call things whatever we want, that’s the gift (and the curse) of language. It’s imprecise and only has the meanings we ascribe to it, but you’re the one who started this thread by demanding that “to say it is not intelligence is incorrect” and I’ve still have yet to find a reasonable argument for that claim within this entire thread. Instead all you’ve done is just tried to redefine intelligence to cover nearly everything and then pretended that your (not authoritative) wavy ass definition is the only correct one.