yongjik
These rhetorics have a distinct feeling of "I found another out-group to which I will assign all the blame, which is very convenient, because I don't want to ever hear 'The earth is going to shit and I could have done something about it.'"
So there's a clear difference in expected utility.
It's not an either-or. We can build more shelter to help homeless people, and at the same time we can dissuade them from using public transportation as de facto shelter.
After all, everybody's perfectly happy to keep homeless people out of their front yard or the local Starbucks. Nobody says "But we need to tolerate bums smoking weed in the middle of our coffee shop, unless we build enough shelter for all of them. ALL OF THEM."
... and that would be the day humanity knows AGI was achieved.
... maybe we should take with a grain of salt every moral aphorism uttered by someone living in that universe.
America is one of the lowest trust society among developed nations. People don't trust government officers to do the right thing, like, at all, and they wear the distrust as a badge of honor.
If that is the case, then it trivially follows that humanity will never be able to build AGI, because every time we build something new, we will understand how we built it, which disqualifies it from being an AGI.
But that doesn't seem like a useful definition to me.
This isn't a deeply unpopular anomaly. This is a significant chunk of America, and they may easily regain the majority if the economy improves in a few years (or if it worsens further under a Democratic president).
If you have a functioning society and a petty criminal, you can just... arrest them. No needs for all those xenophobic drama.
Or not, I guess. After all, what am I to tell Japanese people what to expect from their own police?
It's more like blockchain than LLM: there's no clear value proposition and you have to squint really hard to see any perceived benefit.
Whatever you do, rich people will travel in their private SUVs, and their gated suburban mansion will never be vandalized. You can put the resource to keep the public space clean and functional, or you can decide such a thing as clean, functional, enjoyable service is reserved only for the riches. Your choice.
South Korea put a notice on them on Interpol. At least one was arrested (at an airport in Romania), though I couldn't find any follow-up article on what happened to him. I hope he got to tour the inside of a South Korean jail.
A society should be willing to put resources to protect is public infrastructure. In the long run, it will also be cheaper than fixing the same thing a hundred times, everyone enjoying second-grade service, or both.
I mean, anyone can say they're for the environment, but are you willing to start a war, lose a midterm, and murder a school full of kids to reduce your carbon footprint? /s
What did happen was that we lost obscure words that could only be understood by looking at Chinese characters (because they're used so rarely, or because they sound the same as another more common word) - you could still use them if you wanted to, but unless you also write them in Hanja, it would be confusing, and if you mix gratuitous Hanja into your writing just because you like those words, most young readers will find it pretentious, and I fear, mostly unreadable.
I can't say we lost much by losing these words. Rather, I think it actually forced writers to select less ambiguous words, which is usually a good thing.
(Also, these days most Koreans know much more English than Classical Chinese, so English loanwords can sometimes fill the gap. It helps that most English (or other Western) loanwords sound different from native or Sino-Korean words, so there's less chance of collision.)
It's a bit easier for Korean as it has far more available syllables (so fewer homonyms), but you could easily imagine these languages making different tradeoffs and ending up in different places.
Well, maybe a bit less than half these days.
As a South Korean - well, considering that my country once went through an existential war against our mortal enemies, the other Koreans ...
Common language and culture doesn't stop hate. Sometimes it just means that your insult will land on your target perfectly as intended.
Thankfully, North Korea's antics doesn't matter, because nobody is trying to sell map service to North Koreans anyway.
The midterms won't look pretty for him.
Lol, just three comments from being "pro-legal immigration" to ... whatever this is.
If pro-Trump commenters are like this, couldn't they at least start with praising ICE? Would have saved time for everyone.
* First, ex-president Yoon was a drunkard idiot: he believed that he was surrounded by evil commies, who manipulated legislative election of 2024 to give the opposing Democratic (Minjoo) party a resounding victory, who would (in Yoon's mind) go on to sell the country to China. Or something like that. So he decided that the only way to "save Korea" from those evil commies is to declare martial law and purge the commies.
* South Korea always had its share of evangelical protestant far right wingers, and sadly they have now become rabid supporters of Yoon (even now!) - Korea's version of MAGA. They maintain that all the delusional shit Yoon said are true, Korea is on the verge of falling to communism, and the only way to save Korea is put the commie usurper Lee into prison and reinstate Yoon as the rightful president of SK.
* Yoon did try to provoke North Korea into attacking SK, presumably to use it as a pretext for his martial law, by deliberately flying drones into NK without precaution so that North Korea could find out. Recently, the court sentenced Yoon 30 years for that [1] (trying to start a war is a serious crime!), though the case is still ongoing. FWIW, North Korea didn't take the bait (thank god) - they have impeccable survival instincts.
* So I think many parts of the RT article is true (I only skimmed it), though the motives might be a bit mixed up. South Korean military command does not want to start a war to defeat "evil commies": that would leave the whole peninsula in smoking ruins. We just had an idiot president who tried to take over the country in the stupidest means possible and failed.
[1] https://www.hani.co.kr/arti/society/society_general/1263280.... (article in Korean)
The most realistic outcome would be that nothing will come out of it, and it will be used by some opposing parties to paint the government as clueless, further eroding the president's popular support.
To be fair, there are some clueless "inter-Korean peace at any cost" ideologues in the current government (and among supporters): maybe the current minister of unification, Chung Dong-young, is the best example. But I don't think President Lee himself is one of them. (He's largely pragmatic in most positions, if a bit shoot-from-the-hip type.)
nice! sugar free!
me take juice, me take sugar, police take me, why? hell!
... yeah I'd say punishing the people can make them vote for us, or at least not vote for not-us, which is basically equivalent.
This sounds like a tautological argument that doesn't really mean anything. Hypothetically, in a near future a super-powerful AI could bring something truly astonishing (say, practical fusion power, or cure all cancer) and one could still argue "They do what their handler wants to see, that's all."
So what does that even mean.
No idea why, or if it's even intentional ...
"You could have come up with Kimi Delta Attention, but you didn't, did you."