The majority of Taiwanese don’t want the status quo, but prefer kicking the can down the road over the autonomous mainland provinces throwing a fit.

I can think of the example of learning how to use a defibrilator, which has become a standard for any person graduating highschool in my country.

You know what? I almost wanted to write “consider it a part of school” in my original comment. Probably should have.

It also doesn’t have to be all at one time, back in my days I did about a weekend a month over three years. In one year I got all my necessary hours from a single two-week course camp: Because I wasn’t at home at all during the time those were 14x24 hours even though the course load was what six hours weekdays, the rest party. Meaning to say: Don’t picture military basic with a drill instructor. Noone has ever accused catastrophe defence to be disciplined unless sirens are blaring.

Not to mention: In many places, particularly villages, it’s practically mandatory anyway: Everyone, at least if male, becomes a fire fighter. You don’t have to stay on for regular duty but you gotta learn the basic ropes so that if shit really hits the fan you know how to help. It’s actually more about re-kindling that kind of attitude in cityfolk.

There’s another reason to say “hell no” to it: People who don’t want to fight suck at fighting. Conscripts are a headache to officers.

What I would be in favour of is mandatory service, though – if you want, and only then, in the military, but the default “I don’t care where I end up” would land you somewhere in catastrophe relief, learning how to operate a field kitchen and how to reinforce a dike. Basic paramedic training, such stuff.

Catastrophe relief is even more reliant on reserve forces than the military when shit hits the fan, and when it does it generally drowns in volunteers – trouble being if people have no training you can’t use them for much more than filling sandbags. Knowing how the organisational structure works and having some experience operating within it is worth tons on its own, even if you have no specific skills that are needed. Also evacuating a city is way easier if the city broadly knows how to evacuate itself. Triage is way easier if you have an army of people capable of dealing with the easy stuff.

The problem is: Data is code, and code is data. An algorithm to compute prime numbers is equivalent to a list of prime numbers, (also, not relevant to this discussion, homoiconicity and interpretation). Yet we still want to make a distinction.

Is a PAQ-compressed copy of the Hitchhiker’s guide code? Technically, yes, practically, no, because the code is just a fancy representation of data (PAQ is basically an exercise in finding algorithms that produce particular data to save space). Is a sorting algorithm code? Most definitely, it can’t even spit out data without being given an equally-sized amount of data. On that scale, from code to code representing data, AI models are at least 3/4th towards code representing data.

As such I’d say that AI models are data in the same sense that holograms (these ones) are photographs. Do they represent a particular image? No, but they represent a related, indexable, set of images. What they definitely aren’t is rendering pipelines. Or, and that’s a whole another possible line of argument: Requiring Turing-complete interpretation.

Quoth the about page:

The company is based in an EU, EEA, EFTA, or DCFTA member country.

So Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia included, but not Turkey (only tariff union), neither are Belarus, Russia, UK, and much of the Balkans. Iceland is included, Greenland isn’t, Faroer should be via Iceland, same goes for Monaco via France, San Marino via Italy etc. Switzerland in particular is included because EFTA.

I think activity spread out quite a bit. During the exodus everyone was posting into the same two and a half meme communities causing massive churn on the front page and giant threads, but now everyone has created and/or settled into their comfortable little corners so any particular portion of lemmy looks less active, while overall it’s larger.

Go ahead, go outside onto the streets, and proclaim “I want lots of people murdered. The more we murder, the better. We really should get started now, what are you waiting for” and see where that’s going to end, even in places like the US. Then realise that showing the Nazi salute expresses that exact same thing.

There’s no such thing as non-criminal fascism. Thus advocating for it is advocating for, condoning, approving etc. of crimes which is a crime literally everywhere, rightfully so.

Fascism is not an opinion, it’s a crime.

You were describing me, rather than discussing the issue.

I have been discussing the issue. You failed, repeatedly, to acknowledge developmental psychology 101, that is, you didn’t discuss the issue. Thus, to work towards the possibility of a discussion about the original issue, I expanded the discussion to your person.

Because unless and until you realise that you’re doing your darndest to not look at relevant factors there can be no progress. And with this I’m actually out.

I reject the idea that only a fully mature frontal cortex is capable of restraining someone from murdering a teenager. Even a radically undeveloped frontal cortex is more than capable.

And I suppose you’re a neuroscientist, behavioural psychologist, and generally smarter than literally every single person working in juvenile justice.

Everything else in your last comment is an ad hominem, and doesn’t need a response.

No. I was describing your character as I inferred from your behaviour, I was not making arguments based on it. Learn your fallacies: “You are a numpty, therefore, you are wrong” is ad hominem. “You are wrong, therefore, you are a numpty” is not.

“Choose”. There it is again. Read up on what the frontal cortex does. You’re ignorant and unwilling to rectify it.

If I were mean I could now claim that’s a choice on your part. But, no: You simply lack the self-control necessary to do your research before you form an opinion and post it online. That little step back, saying “wait, is this right”, that “should I consider this impulse more closely before acting on it”. You’re lacking it, and by golly our 15yold is lacking it. He has an excuse, you, presumably, are old enough to have a fully developed frontal cortex.

Mostly they’re dried, including pod, the rest is genetics.

They are botanically nuts, though: They are indehiscent, meaning they do not open to release their seeds. They’re also fruit. It’s e.g. pine nuts which aren’t nuts because pine cones do indeed open and release the seeds. Of which you should roast a couple and mush up with a wee bit of garlic, a metric pound of basil, some salt, some proper hard cheese, and quantum satis good olive oil. Use a mortar the basil wants to get squeezed, pre-chop everything or you’re going to be there forever. Throw your pasta, shape is not that important as long as it’s bronze-cut, into a pan at lowish heat, put your pesto on top, add some of that pasta water (incl. the starch in there), the saponids in the garlic will help with emulsifying everything. Reduce very carefully you don’t want to denature the cheese.

I guess making a distinction, in the culinary context, between nuts and peanuts makes sense because allergy considerations, legumes are a class of their own there.

Please, again, read up on developmental psychology, and what the prefrontal cortex does. The alternative, for you, is to effectively have zero empathy for anyone younger than the early 20s. Whether they murdered or stole a cookie or broke a toy.

I’m out of here lest sounding like a broken clock.

His upbringing isn’t relevant to the issue.

Why? Because it would put blame on the adults? Because you want to, at all cost, deflect responsibility from the ones in the position to provide warmth without there being a burning village?

I call that spineless.

He isn’t owed any societal protections for deciding to kill someone.

Why, then, are the adults owed social protections for deciding to turn him into the kid he became? And yes I used “decided” deliberately here: If he decided to become a murderer, then the adults can’t claim that “it was an accident”, “we didn’t mean to” when it comes up to turning him into a murderer.

I would hedge my bets for now. Alternative scenario: The Saudis throw another party for Trump, make some business deals in exchange for reigning in Israel. The House of Al Saud of course doesn’t care about Palestinians but their people do and a party and some business is a low price to pay to be celebrated by your subjects.

When it comes to Russia, Trump may realise that Putin way overplayed his hand, but that’s balanced by animosity towards Zelensky. OTOH, I mean, business deals. Don’t underestimate Ukraine when it comes to being smooth operators. They can sell NASA/SpaceX rocket engines made from Russian war reparations titanium.

Thing is: Trump is highly neurotic and thus, while not necessarily predictable, highly manipulatable if you know what you’re doing. Only have to blow the right smoke up his ass.

It’s a pretty simple concept. He is the one who performed the act. He is responsible.

So if someone calls up an assassin to murder another person, the one who ordered the kill gets off scott-free?

Unless you can show the adults deliberately taught him to murder, I’d say no.

Adults have a duty to raise kids well, just as they have a duty to file their taxes. If they cannot do so on their own, they have the right to be helped along by the rest of society. And, really, even if not there’s that other (more famous) African saying: It takes a village to raise a kid.

Consider the alternative, or, rather, that really seems to be what you’re implying: That children are responsible for their own upbringing. Next up: Babies are expected to grow their own food. Your potted petunia is responsible for its own watering.

You argued that 4-year-olds don’t need supervision.

If they have shown signs of being violent to their peers, yes of course they need supervision. And so does our 15yold. But that doesn’t mean that we pre-emptively supervise every kid that way they’d never learn independence, and thus never truly become adults, they’d just spinelessly bow to the next random person who passes as an authority figure.

Life, liberty, rights, and privileges can - and should - be deprived upon conviction of a crime.

Life can and should be deprived? That’s barbaric. Every civilised country has abolished the death penalty. Heck even parts of the US managed to abolish it.

I summarily reject your suggestion that a 15-year-old is so lacking in their capacity for executive control that they can be excused of murder.

So you reject reality. Which explains a lot.

By all means, be warm to the kid. Until he starts setting people on fire.

And what if noone was warm to him, who is at fault when the village burns? I’d say the adults are. Punishing the kid is just them trying to cover up their own failures. A convenient scapegoat for their own failure to foster wholesome interactions.

Your position is therefore undemocratic.

If your position was to kill all people of a particular skin color then my position would be the same. Democracy cannot work if fundamental rights are not protected from onslaught by people who, ultimately, would abolish democracy itself. Because that’s where your path leads: Towards a failure to regard other people as people.

comprehend the rightness and wrongness of murder

You still fail to acknowledge that that’s not what it’s about. It’s about executive control. If an adult has an intrusive thought they have a very good grasp on blocking it, youth doesn’t. If everything works well then they’re simply exploration happy, like stupid bands, invent new makeup styles and re-invent the shopping cart race. If society messed them up at a fundamental level then things like murder can bubble up, and might not be stopped by the weak frontal cortex. That does not mean that they’ll regret it, though: They’re already perfectly capable of rationalising, and will do so to maintain a consistent self-image of themselves.

Did you understand anything of what I just wrote. Please rephrase it in your own words (“So you’re saying that…”) so I know we won’t continue to talk past each other, there.

More generally speaking, there’s an African saying: If a kid does not feel the warmth of the village they will find the warmth they deserve by setting it ablaze.

You’re just not shooting at the enemy, but you’re still shot at by artillery or missiles.

If you’re in artillery range that’s a combat role. Definitions may differ but you’re “serving at arms”.

…and, no, when Ukraine is sending in a Leopard or such for repair they’re not doing it on the frontlines. The service centre is in Poland, the frontline is too much of a fickle place to have big cranes, stacks of turrets and chassis to mix and match, etc. That’s a different thing from a shop a bit back from the frontline that can do “extended field repairs”, say, replace a track, or switch other parts that are designed to be easily replaced. Those places are at least semi-mobile and part of the tank battalion.

because you could be drafted to maintenance near the front lines,

And field hospitals can’t be near front lines? If with “near the front” you mean “you’re running around with a sidearm” then that’s a combat role, combat mechanic isn’t a non-combat role, the actual maintenance is just as far back as hospitals are.

So your statement that it is harsher on women is not correct.

You cannot interpret “harsher” freely, without taking account what I called harsher, after the colon: Women who don’t have the stomach to go into the medical field don’t have an out, legally speaking. While the law says “Not all men are fighters”, it is saying “all women are nurses”. You see the difference in essentialism there, don’t you?