DarkWinterNights

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

The degree of traffic that happens in online discourse hits an 11 during these events; some are engaged in good faith, some are actors and useful stooges, but most are LLMs (and sometimes legacy low effort bots that are much easier to spot, great for confirmation bias); the technology for drive-by commentary has never been "better" than now, and a dozen or so unique system prompts and not even a dozen RTX-4090s is more than enough to create a false consensus across the entirety of a platform.

Musk has 200,000 of even higher end ones (H100s). Get ready for this to be on all the time.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

LLMs will yell into the void. It's never been simpler.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Look, you keep debating step 3 while ignoring steps 1 and 2. My point remains it never even gets that far under historical context; pragmatically, there are many hurdles beyond just the legal framework.

I think we can at least agree that a major root cause of our electoral issues is FPTP, same with OP, so I'll leave it at that.

E: Just wow. Wow. What a waste of time - textbook strawman sealion debate; nothing has nuance, everything is easy. Definitely not wasting more time on this.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

It's not really a party problem specifically - they're more of a symptom. In reality, the FPTP winner-takes-all (with questionable SCOTUS and congression checks and balances), high risk, expensive break down then rebuild then break down then rebuild full pendulum swing incentivizes these mechanisms that result in no one winning, and a generation of setbacks every time you take a step forward.

In fairness, Trump is trying to "fix" this - you just may not agree that an authoritarian corporatocracy with him as Supreme Chancellor of the Galactic Republic is the right solution (and, frankly, most wouldn't).

[–] [email protected] 19 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

It's kind of burying the lede to just remark PP is likened to "Trump light." He has likened himself by exclusively pulling from Trump's playbook, with the divisive rhetoric, outright untruths, dog-whistling, name calling, verb the noun slogans, and quite literally "Canada First" signs he still hangs in his speeches.

In Alberta he's repeatedly espoused support for Danielle Smith's insane policies, her personal hero and inspiration being the real "Trump light," Ron DeSantis. Nevermind they have openly acknowledged (before the craziness) they'd rather work with Poiliviere, and he's been heralded in the MAGA circles as Canada's Trump moment (with a complete absence of the irony).

If he put on 200 lbs and lost all natural skin color, he'd be a slightly more articulate Trump impersonation.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Especially online - detection becomes possible over sustained interactions for only the most critical (at best), but you don't get that online, and especially not on drive-by commenting, which is the norm for media/social media.

Phony consensus and bad rhetoric are one system prompt away, and the only thing I'd argue is there probably is no escaping it, even for the most civic minded and informed people. Your best bet in the coming months is an awareness it's happening largely undetected, that we've all fallen for it, and explaining it to as many people as possible.

The big problem will be the vast majority thinks they can tell, that they're uninfluenced, and that they have the inside line.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 days ago

Two things can be true at the same time, and it can all run cover for each other.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

You've probably nailed it, unfortunately. Which will beget more of this behaviour the next time he wants international theater and conflict of interest moneys to distract from national theater and conflict of interest moneys.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Definitely. But there's learnings to be had here too.

Even if/when stability returns after that (on a 4/8 year basis), we know their governance is now openly bipolar, more than it has ever been; it doesn't care what the facts are, it's base doesn't care what the realities are, just the pretense and if their populist icon is winning.

You can't go back to trusting them as a center stage participant anymore, because in 4-8 years, you just get caught with your pants down again. Seeking out reliable, long term partners who are more resilient to full pendulum swings that gut everything is paramount, especially those that put international stability over momentary opportunistic grabs at public coffers.

Trump's wiping out trillions of America's power and credibility for coming decades for a couple billion in personal wealth consolidation. Worst case scenario for him; he'll just fuck off somewhere else. Or maybe he becomes god king of earth through incremental annexation. Either way he doesn't give a shit, and the next opportunist won't either.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago

Sure, it's absolutely valid that Trump has massively helped Liberals in the polls.

It's also true that the Conservatives attempt to emulate Trump's populist rhetoric also blew up in a post Trump victory, as they themselves drew the comparisons.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

Since he subcontracts all his thinking and none of his talking out of both sides of his mouth, I would assume someone somewhere must hire some at least half-competent analytics guy before it all becomes distorted through their cronyist chain of command.

view more: next ›