t1E9mE7JTRjf

I would guess those working in AI see some possible ethical quandary but resigned themselves to an attitude of "it's happening either way". Although what csam and racism are we talking about? my observation on AI is they're all pretty cucked and boring to talk to. Or is the grok ai more liberal than others and unique? I used it a year or so ago when it came out and it seemed as gated as all the others.

Maybe a silly question, but is there a reason/advantage to using mac minis over any other kind of small computer/laptop, ie running linux?

My understanding of using a mac mini for ai (ie running a claw bot or whatever) is to have it 'always on' and a better price/performance profile than a cheap vps.

Is there performance (silicon processor?) so unique? As I guess it's not their graphics units. I see tonnes of people using mac minis for AI, to the point it almost became a meme.

Edit: yes I know this article is about local models, my question is a bit more general.

those agencies aren't the ones lobbying. take a look at the 'ngos' lobbying for chat control.

there are relays built exactly for this, for rebroadcasting. You can do whatever you want in nostr btw.

this is also not entirely needed since you publish a list of relays you use, and so clients publish notes for you to them and you read from the relays of people you interact with.

there are many different people/teams working on different aspects of nostr, there are no protocol maintainers.

did you meet people who base buying a car off of who the car company owner supported in a foreign (to them) election?

or would you say these were ordinary people or more the kind of people paying attention to international events? (genuine question).

I get that to an american it's contentious, but imagine not buying a toyota car or samsung phone because the powerful head of that company gave huge amounts to a conservative politician in their country. That's how I look at elon/trump in the us, and given I never hear normal people (not reddit/hackernews/guardian) talking about ANY of this stuff, I'd guess I'm not alone.

no that's simply not correct or backed up by any historical data. as the saying goes "it's easy to fool someone but hard to convince someone they've been fooled"

> how could colonial historians know that "these groups had diminished" before colonialism when they weren't there?

is this a serious question? what defines history as a subject is precisely that it is not the present.

None of what you said refutes my first point. All your points are valid, just missing broader context. 'Native American' history didn't begin when Europeans arrived. Seems to all boil down to, people A did X bad things to people B thus people A are responsible for demise of people B, while ignoring everything else that occurred with people A - who by the way are only viewed as A by people B.

> It's really hard to read this comment as anything other than "don't worry about the genocidal policy of the US with regards to the natives, for they were a violent people."

This is a wild jump to make. I'm not sure I can take your comment in good faith as being serious.

> None of that makes it less of a war against the native americans

No that's exactly what it makes it, as their conflicts subtract from those with newer arrivals. Different groups fighting each other, and then other different groups from Europe came, and made allegiances with specific local groups, then collaborated in their conflicts.

It's worth understanding that 'western colonization' wasn't a singular coherent force. There were different foreign groups with different interests - who were fighting with each other in North America.

Similarly there were 'Native Americans' (quotes as this is a colonial term) pursuing their own interests, even going to Europe. I'm not sure it's your perspective but there is a popular historic image of native americans being a defenceless people who foreigners came and wiped out which simply isn't correct, and ironically quite colonial.

you seem used to issuing commands. best of luck with that approach. your cherry picked data points may be correct, but they are also misleading absent broader historical context. these groups had largely diminished already (as is well documented by historians of the period), so your subsequent points about x/y/z impact although valid don't carry weight. imo data driven arguments trump emotional appeals. Trail of tears and similar are powerful and empathy inducing for sure, but don't change the facts around which my comment was based. your presentation skews things to a false dichotomy of one group against another which is inaccurate and unproductive. current politicians (left or right) in the US don't change history (and no I didn't bother reading your nytimes link...).

> Did tribes fight and war and capture slaves? Yes. They did that for forever.

sounds like you're confused what point you are arguing.

Sounds like the opposite no? Since we are going through population collapse in a time of abundance. Does make me wonder what the political dynamics were at the time, whether some could see problems but weren't in power to change things. Or maybe they couldn't understand or figure out solutions to the problems. What I'd give to be a multilingual fly on the wall throughout history.

> most of the big wars against the Native Americans

As I learned it, most of the conflicts were between not against. Native Americans, became a term as a general catch all but those peoples saw themselves as quite diverse, and as such is something of a misnomer.