Nothing is inevitable. Backsliding is always common. Most forms of government tend to backslide towards a strong-man at the top who is above the law. This is exactly what’s happening with the American democratic republic that was previously a mix of capitalism and socialism. That doesn’t mean that a strong man is a natural element of capitalism or democracy or republics or socialism or capitalism. It’s that a strong man who’s above the law is a common feature of human communities.

Pretty much every form of government that allows for more participation by the people being governed tries to put constraints on the rulers. The US called theirs “checks and balances”. The British started with the Magna Carta.

It’s like saying you like playing monopoly but then after all the properties are bought out you turn around and say it’s no longer monopoly.

You’re talking about monopoly, the board game, previously called “the landlord’s game”, a game designed to teach about the dangers of monopolies?

It’s not baffling when you realize that there are only 2 remaining car manufacturers in the US, and fewer than 20 worldwide.

Look at the number of car companies established just in 1900:

• Auburn: 1900 to 1937
• California Automobile Company: 1900 to 1902
• Massachusetts Steam Wagon Company: 1900 to 1901
• Dodge: 1900 to 1928
• Friedman Automobile Company: 1900 to 1903
• …

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Vehicle_manufacturing_companies_established_in_1900

When there are only 2 manufacturers in a space, it’s no surprise if they ignore certain consumers. If there were a hundred different manufacturers like there were in the early 1900s, then there would almost certainly be someone offering something closer to what you want.

For example, instead of a lever to flush, you get a button. If the software isn’t up to date, the button won’t work.

But then they have the audacity to FORCE us all into it by outright destroying anything else

That’s because there’s no competition. Capitalism requires competition. Adam Smith thought it was the job of the state to step in and ensure that monopolies were broken up so that capitalism could work.

You cannot buy a good car anymore

There are only 2 US car manufacturers, 3 if you want to count Tesla.

rolling malware that is unfixable by the user

Because they’re weaponizing section 1201 of the DMCA to prevent people from competing with them.

What you hate isn’t capitalism, it’s that you can’t even get capitalism because the government refuses to regulate businesses. For capitalism to work, the state has to ensure that there’s healthy competition in the marketplace. But, when there’s competition a rich person who owns capital might lose. So, a rich person much prefers feudalism or a corporatocracy to capitalism.

Sure. Racism will always be a factor.

Minneapolis: Check.

On video: Check.

Massive uproar: Check.

White victim: Nope.

George Floyd’s death shows that what matters is that it happened in front of witnesses who were recording on video, not the colour of the victims’ skin.

Taiwan is presumably red because if Taiwan was green China would be red. So, the WHO just sighs and goes “ok, Taiwan, would you mind accepting ‘observer status’ or something?”, and Taiwan’s rep just sighs too and says, “sure, we get it.”

It bans some versions of this, but it can’t ban all of it. The obvious way is fully banned and hard to get away with: pay someone to delete unflattering things about you on Wikipedia. But, you can do a much more costly, slower, but much more likely to be acceptable version: you can buy a newspaper and arrange for that newspaper to write flattering articles about you. Since those articles qualify as a primary source, you can then have someone update Wikipedia to include things from that article using the article as a primary source. That doesn’t delete the unflattering things, but it pushes them down the page and surrounds them by flattering things. If you’re a billionaire, you’ll find a way to get the articles edited in a way that is permitted by the Wikipedia rules.

there’s always at least one guy who’d hyperfocus on monitoring something like this

That’s the thing, there’s only about 3000 billionaires worldwide, but 8 billion other people. Let’s say out of those 8 billion, there are maybe 20 who really, really hate Bill Gates. All it takes to undermine all Bill Gates’ attempts to launder his reputation is for a few of those 20 to keep an eye on his Wikipedia page in their spare time, and challenge any changes that try to whitewash his reputation.

Trickle down economics doesn’t work well, but at least this causes a trickle down effect. Gates spends millions with PR firms to keep his reputation clean, including vandalizing Wikipedia. Those PR firm employees are unethical assholes, but they’re not billionaires. Gates (indirectly) pays their wages. These PR firm assholes then spend Gates’ money to buy BMWs and prostate massagers. That ends up trickling down to car mechanics and massager manufacturers.

So, every time you edit Wikipedia with unflattering but true information about billionaires and middle eastern oil states, you’re causing some wealth to leak out of the billionaires’ pockets as they fight to contain that information. And you can do this damage while just sitting on a toilet.

I don’t think anybody, other than maybe high-school kids, thought Wikipedia was some perfect site with no flaws. Even with these flaws, it’s really an amazing achievement and deserves massive amounts of praise.

Just compare it to what came before: Encyclopaedia Britannica and the like. Wikipedia is estimated to be about 95x bigger than Encyclopedia Britannica. So, it goes more in depth on almost everything, and has orders of magnitude more articles than Britannica had. And, do you think Britannica didn’t face pressure to not publish controversial or unflattering information on rich people? It was probably much, much easier for the rich to get things their way when it was a single, for-profit publisher, rather than a worldwide group of volunteers. And then there’s the issue with being factual or having a neutral point of view. That’s always going to be a challenge, but it’s much more likely there will be systemic bias for an American-owned for-profit company than it is for a volunteer-based non-profit with editors worldwide.

Also, the way Wikipedia works, it’s much harder for these PR firms to completely hide things they don’t like. Nearly all of Wikipedia’s edit history is easily visible just by clicking a link on the page you’re reading. If someone removed something unflattering, you can often find it just by going through the edits. It would be nice if the rich couldn’t adjust the main pages, but at least it’s extremely hard for them to make unflattering information completely disappear just due to how the editing process for Wikis works.

Finally, paid PR professionals can’t just edit whatever they like. Wikipedia editors are notoriously proud of what they do, and annoyed at seeing their site vandalized. Often edits will be rolled back, or pages will be locked. Eventually a billionaire might get what they want, but to get a fact changed on Wikipedia they’ll probably need to pay a reputable news site to make a counter claim, then have one of their paid PR flacks to use that news article as a primary source to allow it to be used on Wikipedia. That’s an expensive and fragile process. Do it too often and you damage the reputation of the news site so it can no longer be used for that kind of thing. And, all it takes to undo that is a good journalist doing their job and reporting the truth and a volunteer Wikipedia editor updating the page.

So, don’t lose hope, just think that billionaires are spending millions to try to launder their reputations, and often those attempts are being undone by some girl in sweatpants casually updating Wikipedia on her phone while she binges Critical Role.

On this subject, it really annoys me that many scientists seem to think that “data” is a plural noun. They say things like “these data support my findings” instead of “this data supports my findings”.

Data is a non-count noun. Nobody ever talks about “a datum”. If you have something that supports what you’re trying to show, you talk about “a piece of data” or “a bit of data”. Where do we see that way of talking about things? Non-count nouns. “A glass of water”, “a bit of dust”.

Sure, some people were initially against electricity. But, it’s not like they had to beg people to use it. There was enough demand that the main issue was deciding between AC and DC, not whether to do it at all.

The difference is in who decides what you see.

Lemmy’s “Top” is scaled based on what other Lemmy users are doing: upvotes, comments, etc. It’s basically the people who use the site collectively deciding what’s interesting, which is a lot of American politics these days.

Meta, Youtube, Twitter, etc. use what people on the site say as part of the algorithm, but they also examine the content to try to discover if it is something engaging or enraging. They compare it against models of what makes people stay engaged, so if there’s something with millions of comments and lots of “likes” but Meta doesn’t think it’s good content for them to sell ads against, they’ll push it down in the ranking.

In the winter when the sun might set at 4:30 pm, it’s pretty ridiculous to try to stop eating before sundown.

Or Greenwich, or Green Bay, or Istanbul, or Islamabad, or Isle of Man.

The only time NATO’s article 5 has ever been invoked was by the US asking NATO to defend them against the “terrists”.

Article 5 is the one that has:

consider an armed attack against one member state … to be an armed attack against them all

The way that sort of invention often works is:

1. Inventor thinks they have a world changing idea
2. Inventor spends their own time and money to build a prototype
3. Inventor shows the product off to the world.

If it truly is a world changing invention, step 4 is “world is amazed, inventor can’t keep up with demand”. There are also frequent cases where the world goes “meh, not for me”. Now occasionally those are when an invention is ahead of its time, and years or decades later the inventor is vindicated. The other case is when the invention really isn’t good, and there simply isn’t and will never be demand for it.

Somehow, the AI bubble is built with people ignoring the feedback from people that keep saying “meh, not for me”, and the various “inventors” burning more and more of their money trying to change people’s minds. Has that ever worked?

Has there ever been a true world-changing invention where the “inventors” had to beg the public to use it?

Capitalism says that the market won’t reward people making those things, and the companies might fail as a result.

But, we’re no longer in a capitalist world. We’re in a corporatist world where it’s closer to technolfeudalism where it doesn’t really matter how bad your idea is, because you aren’t out to make a profit, instead you’re out to extract rent.

This is the thing I hope people learn about LLMs, it’s all hallucinations.

When an LLM has excellent data from multiple sources to answer your question, it is likely to give a correct answer. But, that answer is still a hallucination. It’s dreaming up a sequence of words that is likely to follow the previous words. It’s more likely go give an “incorrect” hallucination when the data is contradictory or vague. But, the process is identical. It’s just trying to dream up a likely series of words.