“we don’t need to prove the 2020 election was stolen, it’s implied because trump had bigger crowds at his rallies!” -90% of trump supporters
Another good example is the Monty Hall “paradox” where 99% of people are going to incorrectly tell you the chance is 50% because they took math and that’s how it works.
Just because something seems obvious to you doesn’t mean it is correct. Always a good idea to test your hypothesis.
Windows bad, ai bad. Upvote. Thought isn’t a big consideration here.
People are able to tell apart BS, though.
Please help me be optimistic. Why do you think this is the case? No matter where I go I see mostly confirmation bias and the lack of even the most basic level of critical thought.
I was going to joke “wow, a whole 4 years?”
It’s not making fun of the lifestyle, it’s the the fact that people who partake in these things seemingly bring it up for no reason.
But honestly I can’t remember the last time a vegan brought up being a vegan for no reason. While here on lemmy it seems every opportunity someone has to claim Linux superiority, no matter how weak, they have to let everyone know how “objectively better” they are.
Is equating Linux users to vegans a thing? I came to the conclusion (I thought) on my own…but now reading this here I’m questioning that conclusion
You’d need to qualify what you mean by ‘exchanging any value of money’.
Previously you said “whether it would replace any more or less efficient actions” and I’m trying to get to the bottom of what you mean. I even asked for clarification if i was asking the wrong question. I feel like I’m now being asked to qualify what I just asked you to qualify.
The real answer is a rhetorical question: what is the impetus for the traditional finance system to operate sustainably, either now or in future? Because for Bitcoin miners it’s clear.
This sounds like it’s agreeing with the premise of the article here: Bitcoin is not sustainable. This isn’t to say other things are sustainable. It’s just pointing out that it uses a ton of water, and a lot of it has moved to a place that can’t really handle the increased water usage so it might cause a water shortage. If this is the reason the article is “not how any of this works” and “BS clickbait” then I disagree.
Anything that consumes energy can be described as consuming or wasting an equivalent amount of water.
Then do so. What equivalent exchange of any value of money uses as much water as Bitcoin? If I’m not asking you the right question here, can you tell me the actual question and what the answer is?
So the quibble is not with the claim that it uses that much water, only that they didn’t do a comparison to other things that meet the same/similar needs?
I feel like the “but” makes it obvious, but I could.be wrong.
I don’t think you know what a thought piece is. There is no analysis or opinion from the author.
I’m not sure what you are saying here. Are you suggesting that I don’t realize a thought piece doesn’t require analysis or opinion, or are you suggesting that the piece was not a thought piece because it included analysis and/or opinion? Regardless, you are wrong.
Although from the rest of your post, I’m guess it’s a third option that you don’t know about the WEF thought piece “You’ll own nothing be happy”, a criticism of which this poster is mindlessly parroting.
Plus when people share their take on it, you just accuse them of parroting talking points.
If someone had actually given “their take” on it, by more than parroting the long-since debunked sound-bite, and I told them they were just parroting a talking point, then this comment would hold some water. But it really rings pretty hollow right here.
That said, if you want to try to explain to us why you feel a corporation taking away access to something that was bought is fair and just,
I never said nor suggested it was, I very explicitly said “no one ‘promised’ this.” It was very clear what, explicitly, I was disagreeing with. I absolutely think it is wrong that they did this, but this thread is filled with the same thoughtless sophomoric BS logic and thoughtless spin on a thought-piece that we see everywhere else this story comes up. They put no thought into it, they just repeat what they heard someone else say. They were met with the same level of dismissiveness that they provided, just a version that more accurately represents the reality.
Imagine being so hung up on the desire to live in a fantasy that you would reject the advice to “think for yourself.” lol Holy shit, amazing.
I guess I just understand that people can be stupid in groups even without a top-down approach.
No one “promised” this. It was a thought-piece written by some one, neither endorsing or opposing it, with the intent of sparking a discussion about it. But good on you for parroting the talking point instead of thinking for yourself.
Oh man, is this stupid sophomoric saying going to be the new parroted talking point of the people who can’t think for themselves?
I agree that it would be a bad data set, but not because it is too small. That size would actually give you a pretty good result if it was sufficiently random. Which is, of course, the problem.
But you’re missing the point: just because something is obvious to you does not mean it’s actually true. The model could be trained in a way to not be biased by our number choice, but to actually be pseudo-random. Is it surprising that it would turn out this way? No. But to think your assumption doesn’t need to be proven, in such a case, is almost equivalent to thinking a Trump rally is a good data sample for determining the opinion of the general public.