text0404

> You can run open source models

Who can run open source models? Everyone in the world, or only a small subset of the population with access to computing products that are powerful enough to run models? Who builds those computing products? Where do their raw materials come from? Where are they mined and processed? Who manufactures and assembles the parts?

> (which are ever improving)

How are they being improved? Are moderation and data labeling jobs usually done by the same people who consume the outputs of the models, or are they outsourced for paltry wages?

> there is no moat for AI neither in software or hardware

No moat for whom? Can the data labelers above start their own AI hardware company?

> Look at yourself in the mirror and tell me it's not the pot calling the kettle black

So we should settle for inaction?

> By this logic China is doing Electric car colonialism

Where does the lithium for electric car batteries come from? What about other rare minerals?

> Bangladesh apparel colonialism

Aren't the people in sweatshops the exploited ones? And the ones who consume the products of their labor the colonialists?

> Would you also like to know if there was an EV company or environmental group financed or sponsored astroturf campaign against ICE vehicles?

I wouldn't care, because environmental groups aren't destroying the planet and covering it up (see also the article you're commenting on: "New Documents Add to Evidence in Climate Deception Case Against ExxonMobil").

> If you want your own biases to be able to communicated

Wanting to know if you're being lied to isn't a "bias".

> We are not terminating the relationship but are setting clear boundaries on our relationship with Mullvad

> We strongly oppose rhetoric that threatens other human rights and freedoms.

> Regardless of your semantic quibbling about the word "schedule"

That was the crux of your latest argument dude. That weird one where you tried to tie this to anti-abortion activists.

> Because it's wrong for the government to evenly enforce the rules on public comment periods, and instead they ought to selectively enforce the rules to your liking.

Keep straw-manning! I believe in you!

> There's nothing more to be said here. You're just repeating the same talking points you've said in this comment chain.

Yes, I can lead a horse to water but I can't make it drink...

They don't explicitly schedule public comments periods in the agendas in Springfield, MO.

The city's rules for addressing Council also list Resolutions among the categories open to public comment. Placing the Flock resolution on the agenda automatically includes a scheduled public comment on it too. Residents were required to register and they did. Before those speakers were called, the council sent the resolution to committee, preventing them from speaking.

> The context of why she made the off-topic comments is that there was no scheduled public comments period with ALPRs as the topic.

Quoting the article:

> Dozens of people showed up to the Springfield City Council Meeting on September 22 with plans to let city leaders know how they felt about the city’s use of automated license plate readers. There was a resolution before the council that would trigger a review of the controversial camera systems, but Schrag moved to send the resolution to committee and prevent public comment on the issue.

> “This isn’t how government is supposed to run. It’s just disappointing. And we’re not even allowing folks to speak who clearly came out to share their voices tonight.”

> The facts of the article is that Hyder made off-topic comments and was removed accordingly.

Once again using a hypothetical and ignoring the context of why she made "off-topic" comments, which is what people are upset about. Should we just keep going in circles? Your turn.

[citation needed]

Nah man, I just think you're trying to straw man this conversation and ignoring the facts of the article, which is coincidentally what someone else said at the beginning of this thread.

I'm not going to engage with your hypothetical nor do I think it's incumbent on me to provide you evidence of anything related to it. If you want to ground this in reality, we can go back to discussing the facts of the actual situation which occurred in the article:

> There was a resolution before the council that would trigger a review of the controversial camera systems, but Schrag moved to send the resolution to committee and prevent public comment on the issue.

> You can disapprove of the council's actions all you want

I do. Turns out even the council itself disapproves of their own actions.

> Hyder's rights are not being "trampled"

I wasn't claiming that her rights were trampled, I was saying that your original comment was viewed as ignorant by another poster because you're focusing solely on decorum and not the fact that elected representatives were attempting to circumvent inconvenient public comments about a controversial topic. I provided you with that context the poster claimed you ignored, because we're discussing the unmitigated proliferation of mass surveillance and not procedural rules for city council meetings.

Again, your hypothetical is not equivalent because it assumes that the "activists" a. had their own public comments section, and b. they monopolized the entire meeting. Neither of those things happened here.

When I asked you how familiar you were with democratic principles, you said:

> Moderately so

You also asked for my credentials and told me that it would be useless to continue speaking to me if I didn't have the experience you expected, which doesn't strike me as a good faith argument.

I'm aware that people can protest. However, protests happen when a system breaks down. The system in question here is the official channel (the public comments section during a Flock policy discussion) that was circumvented by elected representatives who found their community's concerns to be inconvenient. When elected representatives refuse to hear their constituency's concerns, it means the system is broken. Most people in this thread are incensed about that, regardless of if Heider broke a procedural rule.

> is just not remotely true. Not unless you meant to narrow down this statement to public comments periods, specifically.

Yes, I mean the official channel that was created specifically for the residents to discuss the policy in question with their elected representatives.

You don't need to take my word for it, here's a sympathetic councilmember:

> Jenson spoke before the vote to push the resolution to a committee. “All I’m trying to do is get people answers to some real questions that they’ve brought to us for months. And it’s a shame that it comes to this sort of, I guess, theater that I’m a part of to try to get those answers,” he said. “This isn’t how government is supposed to run. It’s just disappointing. And we’re not even allowing folks to speak who clearly came out to share their voices tonight.”

I'm not getting into the weeds on anti-abortion activism. Your hypothetical is not equivalent because the "activists" in this case were not allowed to speak about the policy in question in the first place.

You see order/decorum as the more important issue, and I see the ability to petition government officials as more important. Residents showed up at the date and time that the officials expected them to, in order to discuss a policy during the time allotted for public comments; instead, officials didn't allow residents to speak. The violation of a procedural rule pales in comparison to the violation of the community's trust in their elected officials and the democratic process.