You can imagine ;)
Seriously, though, I said (irl) the home affordability crisis in my country can’t be truly solved in any way that simultaneously still allows people to invest in homes (rent them out, sell them at higher prices, do business with tourism, etc) to any meaningful degree. Everyone around had very strong, diverse opinions on that.
We literally had this situation for decades before a few short years ago. People could invest to a meaningful degree and there was no crisis. What is your reasoning that this is impossible?
Imagine a situation wherein everyone has more or less the same amount of money. They can afford the same number of houses, let’s say, two small, or one larger house. Even if there’s some inequality, it’s not hard to imagine people buying larger or smaller homes and yet everyone being able to afford one. Renting is an afterthought in this scenario.
If inequality grows larger, some people will not be able to afford ownership, and then renting becomes profitable; those who can afford more than one house will buy more than they need, increasing demand and then offering those homes for renting and getting profit. This in turn increases inequality, but as long as the forces pushing it down prevail, this state can last for long.
The crisis breaks out when these mechanisms eventually come out of balance, pushing a large share of people out of the market, and homeownership starts concentrating.
The idea is that investing is only profitable when people don’t have what they need; any solution that gives them that (increasing public housing is a popular proposal here) will reduce profit. In fact, profitability is at a maximum now because of the housing crisis, and even just going back to step 2 would reduce it. A “perfect” solution would give everyone homes at the best price physically possible and with full liquidity, which would sink renting yields to basically zero.
seems uncontroversial to me
Objectively, yes. But it was polarizing at the time because some of the people present were investing heavily in real estate.
If it were supposed to be pronounced “jif” it would have been spelled that way.
This is a jem of a response, but by jeneralizing pronunciations of acronyms only by the way they are spelt, you are opening a jigantic can of worms on etymology and linguistics.
The jist of it is that English is a weird language, jenerally descriptive, and there can be many correct answers to the same pronunciation problem.
As for me? I’m a choosy developer, and I choose jif.
jigantic
I read that as Jig-antic. I would have to turn it into jygantik for it to sound the same.
Laser is an acronym for Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation, and yet we all pronounce it “lay-Zer” not “lay-Ser”
The A in amplification and E in emission are pronounced differently too, so the “correct” pronunciation would be “lah-seer”.
And clearly based on the intense response you win the controversial statement award
So how do you pronounce giraffe?
If there’s ever a Giraffe Interchange Format, I’ll pronounce it the same as giraffe. And unlike some people, I’ll be able to tell the two apart.
In the meantime, there is a Joint Photographics Experts Group. I love me some deep fried jfegs!
How do you pronounce gift?
Yes, but “GIF” is not etymologcally Germanic. 😉
With the other pronunciation. Some letters have more than one. Your statement is nonsense lol
GIF is an acronym. Giraffe is not. The Giraffe response has been debunked for decades.
Graphical is a hard G.
Debunked? Its a counterpoint to the fact that it’s pronounced that way because it’s spelled with a g. If that poor argument wasn’t used, the giraffe one wouldn’t have to come up. It’s not evidence of anything other than that letters can be pronounced in more than one way.
For the graphical thing, imagine pronouncing NASA wrong because of the way aeronautical is pronounce. Or underwater in scuba. World in WHO? The I in AIDS isn’t pronounced anything like immunodeficiency.
Your argument doesn’t work either.
The argument holds up.
Thank you for providing me all new ways to pronounce things in horribly cursed ways, magic internet man.
Also “laser” as lah-seer
It’s a gift, not a jift.
Yeah and it’s giraffe, not jiraffe. See how that gets us nowhere?
Jood gob indeed (just kidding, no malice intended)
How do you pronounce github? GIMP? GNU? GPU? Javascript?
Oh Geremy, it’s time to jo to the jocery store! We need some jrape gelly.
Geoff is a gentle German giant with ginger hair. He’s also a germaphobe, though generally he’s still a genuine gentleman. You get the gist.
The creator of the format is documented as having confirmed the pronunciation is “jif”, but I don’t care. Once he created it and put it into the world, he relinquished his control.
This is why literary analysis created death of the author.
I honestly believe he was just trolling when he said that and he probably giggles to himself everytime someone says (shudder) ‘jif’. It’s a hard G from graphics so I don’t know how else is could be reasonably pronounced.
Nuke russia and china
Being born to narcissistic parents was extremely controversial in my childhood home. I was the selfish little ingrate in the house who kept asking for things even though they already provided a house and food most of the time, and that was very polarizing for my parents.
Probably “we should eliminate cars as personal transportation”
trains are great but motorbikes work really well too. living in a society dominated by two wheeled vehicles, every traffic jam you see is caused by some third dingus in a car
No they don’t, motorcycles encourage the same city design (my fundamental problem with cars) and are even louder. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdDYVjDwgwA
they make far better use of existing car infrastructure
You’re thinking of a bus.
they work too, yea. personally i get bus sick. it’s light rail or two wheels for me
I think that’s about as controversial as saying “We should abandon industrialized meat production”.
Try saying it to your family. I see that you’re on the terminally online instance ;)
Marxism is correct and more relevant than ever.
I’m curious what makes you say that. What evidence is there to support Marxism? Isn’t Marxism just communism? Just genuinely curious. I always thought that communism has been proven not to work multiple times throughout history. Not trying to say I think Capitalism is perfect. I definitely agree that Capitalism that is unrestrained and companies that are allowed to reign free is bad for the common people.
Marxism is Communism, yes. Communism has been proven to work multiple times, and does to this day.
I suggest reading Blackshirts and Reds if that goes against what you believe to be true, though if you have specific questions I can do my best to answer.
Serious question, are there any true communist/Marxist nations today that would be examples of your statement?
Sorry about terribad formatting, old phone is old
Historically there have been more, such as the USSR, but currently the DPRK, PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos are explicitly Marxist. There’s a lot of misinformation surrounding them, but they retain Marxism.
Is it your stance that every nominally Marxist country is actually Marxist? That there are no revisionist countries even though, for example, the USSR spent most of its existence being revisionist?
I wouldn’t say there are any “orthodox” Marxist countries, most have taken some fair bit of revisionism, but are still Socialist and practice Marxism.
Fair enough, I mostly agree. I can imagine that China, Vietnam, and Laos are on the list because of, uh, capitalist roading, and the DPRK is nationalist to a reactionary degree and kind of culty, but what criticism would you apply to Cuba? Do they do capitalist roading too? I don’t hear much about them in that regard.
Doesn’t the DPRK operate under the Juche political concept?
Juche is basically Marxism-Leninism, but with a focus on self-reliance.
I always thought that communism has been proven not to work multiple times throughout history.
The more accurate lesson would be that communist nations have been defeated by capitalist hegemony multiple times throughout history, mainly during the Cold War; the countries didn’t just implode of their own accord. Now, it’s fair to criticize them for this, if you have an ideology all about material conditions and then you aren’t able to survive those conditions, you probably messed up, but I think that’s a very different assertion from “communism doesn’t work”.
communist nations have been defeated by capitalist hegemony multiple times throughout history, mainly during the Cold War
You are aware of the many attempts in different countries to leave the USSR, right?
All of them were violently shut down, that’s why the system was able to keep going, but without violence against their own population the USSR would’ve collapsed much earlier.
I’m unimpressed. The US has crushed rebellions from its inception, famously including the civil war but also many other attempts, and I would say that the patterns of what some call the New Afrikan nation within the US to revolt, going solidly up to the 1980s or further depending on your interpretation, are perhaps the most important.
As some guy said, “Revolution is not a dinner party” and establishing and maintaining a revolutionary state requires its own violence. No Marxist says otherwise, as it is the famous quote of Engels: “The proletariat uses the State not in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the State as such ceases to exist.”
I guess in real life that’s polarising…
On here it’s just preaching to the choir, thus the upvotes.
Depends on the audience. It’s polarizing, hence the downvotes as well.
Apparently arguing in favour of AI art is pretty controversial, but then the anti-AI luddites are about as intractable as trump cultists, and their arguments about as valid, so fuck 'em!
the luddites were happy to use the new tech, but not for less pay and worse working conditions, so they trashed the machines - and history has looked down on them ever since.
They are mostly known for having smashed machines and been terrified of technology. That’s where the parallel here lies, and what the term has come to mean. Whether they had good reasons back then is irrelevant, the anti-ai bunch don’t have now.
I drew out the luddite parallel deliberately: artists likely do not mind AI tools if they are credited and compensated for their work, but they receive no residuals nor credit whenever their work is used so using the tools amount to their theft.
No it doesn’t. It’s not theft by any reasonable definition of the word. No images are stored, no artwork is used directly to create other artwork. It’;s just not, that’s not how latent diffusion works. That’s one of most commonly repeated pieces of bullshit which has been refuted so often you would have thought it’d have got through a few of your thick skulls by now.
(thanks for the insult, stay classy) so the network training stage was pulled out of thin air then? Huh, I didn’t know these models could self-bootstrap themselves out of nothing.
I guess inverting models to do a tracing attack is impossible. Huh.The insult is justified because you are spouting bollocks. Again. You CANNOT pull any of the training images out of a latent diffusion model, it is simply impossible because they are NOT THERE and if someone says they did they are either lying or spent a fuck of a lot of time and energy on making it look like they did. Either way they are trying to con you. Also the training thing - it’s no different to art inspiring human artists except the neural network in the computer is a lot simpler. It’s a new medium being used by humans, by artists, to create art. That’s all it is.
I don’t have the time or energy to explain any more of this to you. Again. Learn how something works before you comment again. Or just shut the fuck up for good. That works too.
(nice ad hominem) Christ. When you reduce a high dimensional object into an embedded space, yes you keep only the first N features, but those N features are the most variable, and the embeddings they contain can be used to map back to (a very good) approximation of the source images. It’s akin to reverse engineering a very lossy compression to something that (very strongly) resembles the source image (otherwise feature extraction wouldn’t be useful), and it’s entirely doable.
I eat the tails of shrimp
I eat the heads and eyes of fish
Same
Classic .ml degeneracy
/s
Take heart, Comrade! For even in death, every scrap of your body shall live on in the flesh of all living tovarischista fighting the good fight against the imperialist swine who waste their uneaten fish heads!
For Lemmy specifically, I don’t think police need to be abolished.
are you saying you don’t want to defund the police as a public service and have some sort of for-profit peace keeper mafia instead? what type of anarchism is this
People should be free to vote for those who best represent them, secure in the knowledge their vote will still be counted against those they don’t want in office.
That only works with non-first past the post voting systems.
Joe Biden is a white supremacist mass murderer.
sorts by controversial
Pedophiles aren’t the problem.
Rapists are the problem.
just wish people understood the difference between a paraphilia and a crime.
Just a fact. A pedophile who never acts on it is just some guy.
Or woman
It makes no sense to pronounce “jpeg” as “jay-peg” because the ‘P’ in Joint Photographic Experts Group clearly makes a sound like the ‘F’ does in ‘fell’. Saying it like “j-feg” is more correct.
It’s just flatout wrong to say it makes no sense because an acronym is pronounced as a word, not an abbreviation of its words. AIDS isn’t pronounced “awh-ids”, NASA isn’t pronounced “N-eh-sa”.
OP is probably saying “suck my fenitals” right now. Or “pheephee” I dunno
op’s just trying to make that happen so they can justify the “graphics not jraphics” excuse
In a discussion about whether liking trans women is gay or not I said that they are all missing the point. Even if it was the gayest thing on earth, being gay should never be this big of a deal. And it just shows how hard it is for some to overcome the stigma of being gay, even if they are super tolerant in general.
That started a group discussion with a lot of different opinions on that matter.
That’s a good one I need to remember that
