That giving the state permission to execute people is ever anything approaching justice.
this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2025
65 points (90.1% liked)
Ask Lemmy
36215 readers
1401 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
That a hot dog is not a taco
That AI (as in "generative AI") helps in learning if you give it the right prompt. There is evidence to support that when a user asks AI to implement code, that they (the user) won't touch it because they are unfamiliar of the code it generated. The AI effectively made a psychological black box that no programmer wants to touch even for a (relatively speaking) small snippet of code to a larger program, that was programmed by another programmer or him.
To further generalize, I fully believe AI doesn't improve the learning process, it makes it more accessible and easier for less literate people in a field to understand. I can explain Taylor expansions and power series simplistically to my brother who is less literate and familiar with math. I would be shocked that after a brief general overview he can now approximate any function or differential equation.
Same applies with chatGPT: You can ask it to explain simplistically taylor and power series solutions, or better yet, approximate a differential equation, it doesn't change the fact that you still can't replicate it. I know I'm talking about an extreme case where the person trying to learn Taylor expansions has no prior experience with math, but it still won't even work for someone who does...
I want to pose a simple thought experiment of my experience using AI on say (for example) taylor expansions. Lets assume i wants to learn Taylor expansion, ive already done differential calculus (the main requirement for taylor expansions) and I asks chatGPT "how to do Taylor expansions" as in what is the proof to the general series expansion, and show an example of applying Taylor expansions to a function. What happens when I try and do a problem is when I experience a level of uncertainty in my ability to actually perform it, and this is when I ask chatGPT if i did it correct or not. But you sort of see what I'm saying it's a downward spiral of loosing your certainty, sanity, and time commitment over time when you do use it.
That is what the programmers are experiencing, it's not that they don't want to touch it because they are unfamiliar with the code that the AI generated, it's that they are uncertain in their own ability to fix an issue as they may fuck it up even more. People are terrified of the concept of failure and fucking shit up, and by using AI they "solve" that issue of theirs even though the probability of it hallucinating is higher then if someone spent time figuring out any conflicts themselves.
That the cereal should be poured before the milk.
But cereral first is only sane and moral. We can't have a floating mound. And that's to say nothing of volumetric concerns.
You sprinkle some more cereal on the milk whenever you run out of cereal.
The whole point is to not have soggy cereal
Really depends on preference and cereal type
It's less of an argument between milk first vs second, but people that like soggy vs crunchy cereal.
The important thing is to not add too much cereal before you can eat it all. Adding in cereal last just helps make sure you don't.
My uncle's ex-wife would pour a bowl of frosted flakes, pour milk on it, put the bowl in the refrigerator, then eat it the next day.
I don't think that's why they got divorced, but I've always believed it was a contributing factor...
I eat my cereal dry by the handful then drink milk when my mouth gets too cottonie
Thought it was illegal the other way around. You probably think the toilet paper should fold over the back too. Don't you?
That there is nothing after death. That praying is pointless. I'm not a Christian as such, and I've no interest in debating the topic. I just find confident absolutists slightly annoying, be they religious fundamentalists or obnoxious atheists. Not that I'm saying all atheists are obnoxious, but there's a certain angsty teen attitude that will assert that there's nothing after death and I find it slightly arrogant.
You and me both.
This is not a popular belief. There are more religious people in the world than none religious people.
But to your point; there exists no evidence that there is something after death, certainly not in the wishful thinking way people do. Ergo, there is nothing after death.
I have never, in my 48 years, had anyone I've known in real life try to assert their beliefs on me. Perhaps I'm just lucky. My own mother is a Christian, whereas my father is agnostic. Neither have tried to tell me what is or isn't. They tell me what they believe, which is fine. It's only a certain type of atheist, of which I've met several, who feels compelled to loudly and confidently tell me about the nature of existence with absolute certainty.
To believe that we die, that's it and there's nothing more to it is perfectly reasonable. But to assert it as a fact implies that they have knowledge beyond others, which I find difficult not to interpret as arrogance.
I've had everything and everyone try to assert their beliefs. If nobody has ever approached you about anything then you've been very lucky indeed.
Anything from Jehova's Witnesses and their dumb little pamphlets, Muslims blaring prayers across the street while displaying billboards on intelligent design, to scientologists starting the most disingenuous arguments.
These are fairly normal occurrences in cities. Perhaps not so much in the countryside, but even then I've had the Christian priest always casually bringing up joining Sunday mass.
You had me right to until the last sentence. Without evidence of anything beyond death, all interpretations of what's beyond death are equally valid. Some require fewer assumption than others so you could say by Occam's razor they're more likely, but making fewer assumptions still means making assumptions.
A shared experience constitutes good evidence. But the experience might involve a special technique for getting the experience. So if you don't do the technique then you don't get the evidence.
The technique might involve serious time and effort. So most of us will never do it.
So now we have 2 sets of people, those who did the technique and those who didn't, with different evidence in hand, arriving at different conclusions.
All interpretatioms of what's beyond are equally valid.
Why? Things in reality don't work that way.
Occam's Razor is not the only tool; Hitchen's Razor makes for a very good bullshit filter. And so far anything about the afterlife, or even the entire concept of the afterlife to begin with, is entirely asserted without evidence.
And so far anything about the afterlife, or even the entire concept of the afterlife to begin with, is entirely asserted without evidence.
Correct, and so is the assertion that there is nothing following death.
For clarity, I do agree that I think there is nothing and that any concept of anything following death is a coping mechanism, but I'm not going to pretend that a lack of evidence for an afterlife is evidence towards nothingness.
But it is. The lack of evidence for unicorns is evidence there are no unicorns. That's how evidence works.
If someone makes the claim they are required to provide proof, they have the burdon of proof. If no proof is to be found it can be rejected. Hence, Hitchen's Razor.
And yet you claim that nothing exists beyond death without evidence. You provide no evidence and assume that a lack of evidence on other theories is evidence of your theory. This is the same methodology theologists used as "evidence" for the heavens. By assuming a default position exists, you're allowing a lack of evidence on any other position of the argument to support your own position.
My point is that nothingness as a state of being (or lack thereof) beyond death is its own theory that also has no evidence. This is the same for all theories of what's beyond death and therefore all theories are equally valid, or invalid if you prefer.
From my perspective in programming terms, you're seeing a variable without a value and assuming no value means 0 whereas I'm saying 0 is also a value which is different from "no value was defined".
that racism is still pervasive even in blue/liberal areas, they just hide it better, plus transplants(people who move to blue areas) often come from more conservative or moderate areas, during one of my speech writing classes in college people were telling thier backstory and thier was one saying they became more conservative when they moved here to west coast, plus we have the ones that escaped from "communist" countries, pretty obvious when was pratically sucking off the military/war effort that america does, during the end of BUSH 2nd term. plus the AA on asian violence and racism never truely get addressed in these blue area, it just gets swept under the rug by the media, for the sake of offending AA people.
Ok. You don't like low hanging fruit, here's one.
I don't believe all landlords are bad and shouldn't exist.
Go.
yea the single owner, or 2 houses. its the corporate ones, and nimbys landlowrd that need to go
I’d even divide it further. Screw the corporate ones, and even the small ones that won’t take care of a property and charge a lot. There are too few that do a decent job and don’t screw over tenants.
That dogs are "good boys" or your friend.
It's common to advise young people that Working hard and grinding when you are young, then having relatively calm and relaxation life for the rest of the life.
I think the relaxation never comes, if you work to death right now then still there is a pretty good chance you would be doing same 10 years from now. I believe ther should be balance between work and life no matter what age.
load more comments
(3 replies)
view more: next ›