yes, we’re talking about different things.

never said it would. I’m asserting that by the time AI gets to the point where its as useful as humans, it’ll inherently be as deserving of autonomy and freedom as we are. which brings you back to being required to pay a living wage.

and what will likely happen is when they finally develop it, suddenly that thing deserves to not be exploited.

proof is in the pudding as they say. sounds like you have your own issues.

https://bartosz.fenski.pl/modern-fs-benchmark/ benchmarks say it all.

Same, and next year when bcachefs has nailed down the kinks it’ll be basically bullet proof with snapshotting prior to its daily updates.

You asked for an example with zero violence.

No I didnt. I was explaining to you why wikipedia’s list isnt useful and why the individual stop looking into the instances on the list immediately after finding counter examples in literally the first couple instances listed.

I gave you that example. And you barely acknowledge it.

Because I didnt give a shit about your example because I knew what I’d find. but lets address it now to demonstrate the point I was making:

The June Democratic Struggle in South Korea was preceded by significant violence during earlier protests, notably the Gwangju Uprising in 1980, where the military brutally suppressed demonstrations, leading to widespread casualties. This history of violence contributed to the urgency and scale of the protests in June 1987, as citizens demanded democratic reforms and an end to authoritarian rule.

You can’t say ‘look this uprising succeeded without the use of violence!’ when the reason it succeeded was arguably because of the use of violence that proceeded it. They’re not independent events. Its the same regime, same population, within less than a generation, involving many of the same actors and part of an ongoing sequence of resistance.

My statement of there being very few examples of non-violent revolutions was a hedge because I’m not intimately familiar with the history of every civilization on the planet for all time. But every time this conversation has come up and people like yourself have cropped up I can’t recall a single instance that was referenced as being violence free.

As people have literally done for you multiple times now, you’re just fucking wrong.

The simple fact is the there are almost no examples of non-violent revolutions. Almost every single revolution has violence as a component of it. it doesnt matter if a particular group within the wider populace (ghandi) was non-violent they were uplifted by the actions of the violent groups if only to offer an alternative group to ‘negotiate’ with.

the simple fact is: revolutions dont occur unless violence is necessary, after all if violence wasnt necessary the changes would have been made long before the revolution grew legs cropped up.

A very useful tactic in this specific situation.

when you find counter examples to the premise you stop since the premise is demonstrably incorrect.

And none of what they did addresses the root cause of the problem. that you can’t take two campaigns in the same ‘region’ and separate out the impact.

Since they didnt provide the actual data they analyzed nothing they said has any value or merit.

Edit: Let me make this simple for you

To estimate the effects of each independent variable on the likelihood of cam- paign success, we employed multinomial logistic regression (MLR), which compares the probabilities that different independent variables will result in each respective outcome: success, limited success, or failure.

Even the math they used to generate their results is incorrect. two campaigns (one non-violent, one violent) in the same political sphere are not independent variables.

Here, I opened the book (research paper) for you. and look! violence was involved in the successful outcomes!

especially in light of the enduring violent insurgencies occurring in some of the same countries—begs systematic investigation.

In many cases, both nonviolent and violent campaigns exist simultaneously among different competing groups.

you can’t isolate the non-violent campaigns from the violent campaigns in such an analysis, they’re part of the same environment.

I’ll also note that the research paper doesnt clearly identify how they generated their numbers. the underlying dataset they used is enitrely absent. so we can’t make any inferences on how well they actually isolated and calculated their values.

in short: doesnt show its work.

laugh RFK, if the money is going to criminals, surely you can charge them with a crime. but since you likely can’t because your data is bullshit.

I imagine having 100% uptime is much harder the bigger a platform is, so did Github grow a lot in the same period?

its not there are scale points where once you hit a critical number you need to re-architect your backend. 1k,10k,1mil, etc. usually these vary based on your app. but they’re usually exponential so once you hit the higher levels it takes much longer to reach the next level.

on top of that you usually by the higher tiers have proper backpressure and signals being sent to the frontend systems to dynamically manage the load generated. so suddenly uptime is much easier.

when you see large repeated failures like this the cause is almost always corporate causing issues.

• reducing engineering budget.
• not listening to engineering department on product decisions. (see the recent product manager AI generated commit that got merged and caused a mild uproar of 'co authored by copilot)
• rushing nonsense out before its ready.

it this particular case i bet it cutting engineering head count and increase AI slop generated code without proper review by engineers. which ive been hearing a lot more from my engineering friends.

This comment should be deleted soon

This comment should be deleted soon

This comment should be deleted soon

This comment should be deleted soon

deleted by creator

This comment should be deleted soon