31337

On Tuesday, the New York Times published a long interview with Donald Trump’s former chief of staff John Kelly, who Googled an online definition of fascism before saying of his former boss:

Certainly the former president is in the far-right area, he’s certainly an authoritarian, admires people who are dictators—he has said that. So he certainly falls into the general definition of fascist, for sure.

Also on Tuesday, the Atlantic published a report that Trump allegedly said, “I need the kind of generals that Hitler had.”

The revelations have dominated discussions on Fox News, and prompted two-dozen GOP senators to call for Tr—haha, just kidding.

Instead, Democrats and their supporters once again contend with a muted reaction from the media, the public, and politicians, who seem unmoved by Trump’s association with the F-word, no matter how many times Kamala Harris says “January sixth.”

One exception was Matt Drudge, the archconservative linkmonger who has been hard on Trump, who ran a photo of the Führer himself. This proved the rule, argued Times (and former Slate) columnist Jamelle Bouie: “genuinely wild world where, on trump at least, matt drudge has better news judgment than most of the mainstream media.”

Debates about Trump and fascism have been underway for a decade now, and applying the label seems unlikely to convince or motivate anyone. But the lack of alarm underlines a deeper question that doesn’t require a dictionary to engage in: Why do so few Americans, including many on the left, seem to take seriously the idea that Trump would use a second presidency to abuse the law to hurt his enemies?

Maybe it’s because Democrats have studiously avoided confronting Trump about some of the most controversial, damning policy choices of his first term, or the most radical campaign promise for his second. You simply can’t make the full case against Trump—or a compelling illustration of his fascist tendencies—without talking about immigration. Immigration was the key to Trump’s rise and the source of two of his most notorious presidential debacles, the Muslim ban and the child separation policy. Blaming immigrants for national decline is a classic trope of fascist rhetoric; rounding our neighbors up by the millions for expulsion is a proposal with few historical precedents, and none of them are good...

"Fossil-fuel billionaire Kelcy Warren is about to land a knockout punch on Greenpeace..."

AI firms propose 'personhood credentials' to combat online deception, offering a cryptographically authenticated way to verify real people without sacrificing privacy—though critics warn it may empower governments to control who speaks online.

I use Google Shopping (the “Shopping” tab on Google) to see if local stores carry certain products, what they cost, how far away each store is, etc. It seems to mostly search national or large regional chains, but it was still pretty useful.

Is there any alternative to this (in the US)? The “nearby” function has unfortunately got shittier and shittier over the past year or so. It's gotten less “deterministic," just mixing results from local stores with e-commerce stores, further reducing usefulness.

I've recently noticed this opinion seems unpopular, at least on Lemmy.

There is nothing wrong with downloading public data and doing statistical analysis on it, which is pretty much what these ML models do. They are not redistributing other peoples' works (well, sometimes they do, unintentionally, and safeguards to prevent this are usually built-in). The training data is generally much, much larger than the model sizes, so it is generally not possible for the models to reconstruct random specific works. They are not creating derivative works, in the legal sense, because they do not copy and modify the original works; they generate "new" content based on probabilities.

My opinion on the subject is pretty much in agreement with this document from the EFF: https://www.eff.org/document/eff-two-pager-ai

I understand the hate for companies using data you would reasonably expect would be private. I understand hate for purposely over-fitting the model on data to reproduce people's "likeness." I understand the hate for AI generated shit (because it is shit). I really don't understand where all this hate for using public data for building a "statistical" model to "learn" general patterns is coming from.

I can also understand the anxiety people may feel, if they believe all the AI hype, that it will eliminate jobs. I don't think AI is going to be able to directly replace people any time soon. It will probably improve productivity (with stuff like background-removers, better autocomplete, etc), which might eliminate some jobs, but that's really just a problem with capitalism, and productivity increases are generally considered good.

Summary: Meta, led by CEO Mark Zuckerberg, is investing billions in Nvidia's H100 graphics cards to build a massive compute infrastructure for AI research and projects. By end of 2024, Meta aims to have 350,000 of these GPUs, with total expenditures potentially reaching $9 billion. This move is part of Meta's focus on developing artificial general intelligence (AGI), competing with firms like OpenAI and Google's DeepMind. The company's AI and computing investments are a key part of its 2024 budget, emphasizing AI as their largest investment area.

I'm seeing strange behavior when I click on a post, then click the "back button" in my browser. Sometimes if I'm on the "subscribed" tab, click on an article, then press back, it seems to show me "all" or "local" posts. Sometimes it shows me a different list if I'm on the "all" tab, click on a post, then press back. Same behavior on Firefox mobile and desktop version.

Haven't went into in-depth testing, but I can't be the only one seeing this right?

Guessing it's something to do with browser, CDN, or server-side cache?

Trying to gauge if I'm going crazy or a little too much "online."

I currently live in Texas, and moving has been on my mind a lot lately as the Republican party and Texas itself seems to be slowly moving toward fascism. I don't know when the slide toward fascism will stop, and how much more authoritarian the state will get. I do not feel very good about my tax dollars going to support this state.

I am a middle-aged cishet white man; middle to upper middle class software engineer. I have leftist opinions (libsoc/ansoc), but I'm not an activist (I am very introverted, probably a little bit on the autism spectrum, and pretty much a hermit right now). I do seldom indulge in marijuana consumption, which is illegal here.

I really don't have much tying me down here. I have no close friends, no family in the state, and no current romantic partners. Last year, I moved within the state for a job, but the company was bought out, and everyone was layed off. I have very high autonomy at my current job, and could probably work fully remote if I wanted. Moving would be expensive (I am in an upside-down mortgage), but I have enough savings to take the hit.

I am personally feeling very isolated here (Texas suburb), at this point in my life, and am thinking about moving into some sort of intentional community (eco-village, cohousing, or land trust; not a commune) in a blue state (or even in Canada if I could pull that off).

Also, the weather in the last 2 years has been absolutely oppressive, and I have a hard time keeping anything alive in my veggie garden :)

Am I being over dramatic? Should I just stick it out here, and try to rebuild my life in a state that doesn't align with my beliefs?

Also, I've heard arguments that libs should stay or even move to red states, but I'm not convinced. The state rules with an iron fist, and pre-empts anything progressive Texas cities try to do. And the district I live in is already pretty solidly blue. Not to mention, red states put families that contain females or lbgt people in danger.