What’s wrong with Nvidia? Genuine question

Deflect is also a good alternative. It’s based in Montreal, Quebec. It’s what a lot of Canadian instances in the fediverse are moving too (see here).

I don’t know anything about accounting, but at first blush it seems like tax evasion and so forth would be easier to detect because the government can look at their bank activity and perform random audits, and so on. In contrast I don’t really know what tools we’d use to catch people lying about their training data

You can bridge it over to Matrix if you feel like thats worth the time and effort

Elon Musk’s xAI has lost its bid for a preliminary injunction that would have temporarily blocked California from enforcing a law that requires AI firms to publicly share information about their training data.

How do you actually enforce this? What’s stopping these companies from just lying about what training data they use?

Don’t you think this kind of trivializes what transgender people go through? Saying you can be trans for species sounds like some sort of mockery of transgenderism

and it turns out a lot of furries DON’T like to be animals, they just… pretend to be animals but “oh that’s a character not really me” and they still consider themselves human…?

Do you not consider yourself to be human?

There are also fewer heart attacks and car accidents when we gain an hour though, so it cancels out in the end.

I’m sure they do. But when you buy things at a store, genuinely speaking those things were produced because someone is making money by doing so. Please only respond to this if you have something intelligent to add

If you understand that people produce things because people buy those things, and people will produce more of those things if you buy more of those things, then you are profoundly stupid

Either you are so dense that you genuinely cannot comprehend this very simple concept, or you are pretending to be dense so in order to avoid losing a debate on the internet. Either way you’re not someone worth talking to, so I’m going to end this conversation here.

Alright, well if you want to continue living in a fantasy world then I guess that’s your choice. Have a nice life

Hey thank you for this response. This topic often triggers a lot of emotion in people so when I talk about it I’m used to people responding with hostility. So it was very refreshing to get this message.

I hope you find the Peter Singer article interesting. If you any thoughts or questions or what to discuss the article after, then I’m happy to chat. You take care as well.

Okay then I’d live to hear you explain how you think modern agriculture works

It wasn’t a particularly funny joke

Well I, for one, thought it was funny

Not everyone literally needs to stop buying meat for there to be an effect. I was trying to illustrate how supply and demand works. The people eat meat and other animal products, the more animals will be killed to meet that demand. Do you disagree that by buying a burger you are contributing to that demand? Don’t try to evade the question, give me a yes or no answer.

Is what I said incorrect? Do you disagree that animals are being tortured en masse to satisfy our trivial gustatory preferences?

Please explain to me how you think economics works then. If everyone were to stop buying meat then would these people be slaughtering the cows for free?

Any evaluation of another culture is necessarily done through the lens of the evaluator’s opinions and preferences, which are (by default) a product of their home culture.

If moral evaluation of a culture is necessarily done through the lens of that person’s culture, then how can anyone ever critique their own culture? How can a moral progress be possible? If my culture raised me to believe that killing animals is a-okay then how did I ever come to the conclusion that it is, in fact, not a-okay to kill animals? Because, by your view, my critique of this culture would necessarily stem from my culture. But this doesn’t make any sense because this critique directly contradicts what my culture has taught me. How could I critique what a culture teaches people if I myself have been taught those same things? Do you see the problem here?

Cleary it is possible (albeit, often difficult) to evaluate your and other cultures through an independent standpoint, such as through a process of moral reasoning. That is the only way we can explain how cultures can critique themselves and gradually improve.

I certainly am not arguing that those societies were not abominable places to live, led by awful people.

You are though. You are arguing that your evaluation that these people are awful is something that is only true from your particular cultural standpoint. Someone, from an other culture could say “hey, actually, Hitler was a saint, truly the best of the best” and he would be right from his cultural standpoint. And neither of you would be right or wrong. It would all literally all just be a matter of opinion. I don’t know about you but I think Hitler was a bad guy. And that’s not just a matter of opinion; it’s a fact.

You cannot agree with me on this and also think that morality is just a product of culture. That’s a contradiction.

I feel like these two statements are in contradiction? You state that some traditional cultures are better because they align with your beliefs, which was my argument.

I was trying to show that the way I evaluate the morality of a culture is not itself a product of my culture. If it was, then I would of course always say my culture is the best. But I don’t. So I must be using some other, culturally independent metrics to make these evaluations (i.e. I must be actually engaged in a process of moral reasoning).

So, I do think some traditional cultures are better, and they do better align with my beliefs. But I came to my beliefs not because my culture told me to but rather through a process of moral reasoning.

Again, I’m not saying that those cultures are NOT an improvement over my own in this particular regard, based on my own view of morality, just that my opinion on the subject is my own and not “The Correct Opinion”.

It’s easy to think that there is no objective morality when you are not being oppressed or harmed. Sure we, here, in the first world (I assume) can sit in our Ivory Towers and contemplate these issues. But what about the victims of the holocaust? Do you think the would find comfort in the idea that there is no objective right or wrong? I don’t think it would help much. Because the Nazis were not compassionate people, even if they were the good guys according to their own cultural narratives.

Similarly, I don’t think these issues about subjective/objective morality really matter much to the animals in our factory farms; they just want their suffering to stop.

So we might be able to convince ourselves that morality is subjective, because morality is an abstract concept. But pain and suffering, these are not subjective notions. When you are suffering, the suffering is real, it is acute, and it is concrete, and you want it to stop. Suffering is not culturally dependant.

When a being is suffering, the compassionate thing to do is to help alleviate its suffering or better yet to prevent it in the first place. And to cause a being unnecessary suffering is cruel. This is something that is true in any culture, in any time, and in any place.

You do realize that they only kill the animal because people like you pay to eat their flesh, right?