Communist

Nah

You can have a universal healthcare system run in a socialist manner because both supply and demand are really warped when there’s patents and people’s lives on the line.

no socialist scholar ever said socialism is when the government gives people healthcare, this just happens to be something socialists want, but it in and of itself is not socialism, and not everything socialists want is socialism. Socialism is when the workers own the means of production, nothing else.

And you can mix and match, having sectors partially solcialist and partially capitalist (subsidized industries, government procurement from private industry, regulations, etc.).

these also are examples that have nothing to do with anything any socialist philosopher ever said. You have listened to capitalist propaganda that says socialism is all these things, try listening to marx or bakunin or kropotkin or any other major socialist thinker as to the definition of socialism.

Capitalism like any tool needs maintenance (so does socialism) but there’s precedent for trust-busting and Keynesian economic policy.

also still capitalist.

The problem is everyone wants some silver bullet solution so they can vote once and all problems are solved forever. That’s an immature understanding of economics. It’s a whole field of study, economics is a complex area of study, and both the MAGAs and the leftists refuse to to even try to understand it.

this is a strawman because you don’t even know what leftists believe, you have obviously not read the works of many if you don’t even know the definition of socialism… but for some reason you boldly assume you do because you read it on the news or perhaps got this information from a middleschool teacher.

It’s like watching children argue over CPU architecture just screaming things at each other over something they have no understanding of while the wealthy laugh at both groups.

i can see how that would be if your strawman were true.

If you wish to debunk all of my claims name any major socialist thinker who agrees with your definition. Not social democrat, socialist.

A shitty one, then

How did you buy 50 for 20?

It by definition cannot and does not anywhere.

you’re thinking of “social democracy” which is capitalist and not at all socialist.

I’m stupid and read the clock wrong and didn’t check even a little.

Interestingly it would be right twice a day

What are you talking about this phone is established, this is their 6th one… and the bootloader is unlocked.

It found out who made it so it knew what to do

It will never be possible to use this for ftl communications. This is like saying in 100 years we will use very long steel rods to communicate ftl by pushing on them. The problem is fundamental.

No they didn’t, they sent a conventional signal that was encrypted with an entangled particle. Nothing was sent ftl, this is like if I had two boxes that I know have the same thing in them, an encryption key, and traveled across the world, and sent you a message, you have the other box, the information in that box didn’t go ftl you just opened it later.

there is no path to ftl communication here.

have a basic video on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oBiS_Yb9Ac

Is that useful for completing tasks?

How do you define consciousness?

Your doctor will know…

For what, exactly? If you get close to someone you’ll know either way right? The only thing I can see that matters impacted is romance?

That’s not the only way to make meaningful change, getting people to give up on llms would also be meaningful change. This does very little for anyone who isn’t apple.

Meaningful change is not happening because of this paper, either, I don’t know why you’re playing semantic games with me though.

It does need to do that to meaningfully change anything, however.

that’s very true, I’m just saying this paper did not eliminate the possibility and is thus not as significant as it sounds. If they had accomplished that, the bubble would collapse, this will not meaningfully change anything, however.

also, it’s not as unreasonable as that because these are automatically assembled bundles of simulated neurons.

It is, but this did not prove all architectures cannot reason, nor did it prove that all sets of weights cannot reason.

essentially they did not prove the issue is fundamental. And they have a pretty similar architecture, they’re all transformers trained in a similar way. I would not say they have different architectures.