Another reminder that the competency of the individual(s) at governing is equally as important as their ideology.

I’m ashamed of laughing at this.

I mean… Humans ARE assholes. Some are cute beyond imagination, while some are just… horrible.

It’s okay to say, “I wish the best for my friends and family over the entirety of humanity”. It’s the winning strategy of game theory plain and simple, isn’t?

“Start by being nice and cooperative. If faced by defection from the other side, do not cooperate until the other side cooperates again”.

The simplest example would be sharing a house as housemates. Some humans are assholes who you’d never want to share space with. Some, you’d desperately want as housemates.

That would be kinda hot ngl

I don’t dislike AI. I dislike capitalist morons snake oil salesman-ing AI.

Yes, there is obviously a great great ethical use of AI. The utopian future is a publicly owned AI system, where all jobs are automated, where all labor is done practically without scarcity at superhuman competency levels. Humans sit on their front porch playing the cello, knitting, or perhaps just fucking. Any sort of progress necessitates the creation of AI in our day and age.

The definition of AI depends a lot on context. Are we talking philosophically? Well, that’s a rabbit hole I don’t want to get into at all right now. Technically? Well, here’s how I’d go about it:

“Intelligent systems are those that have a set terminal goal, and continually attempt to get closer to achieving their terminal goal, by refining each attempt by learning from past experiences interacting with their environment.”

So if we have to look at this as a function, AI would have these qualities: Input params and output params. AI is the function in the middle. AI takes input params and tries to correctly manipulate them to form output params. It uses results to change its model to be “more correct” in the future. So by this definition, your dumb 20 year old computer vision models would still qualify as AI.

Ehh honestly, can’t something as powerful and as long lived as Satan just… Know all spoken languages?

Imagine Satan trying to seduce you, but unable to buy your soul because he can’t speak your language fluently. Would be a funny setup, but kinda lame

Naww I didn’t haha. It just gave me that momentary heart attack lol

I hate you so much. I’m developing a Lemmy client, and ur user “[object object]” showed up. I panicked so hard for a second there, thinking that I massively goofed up somewhere. :|

Funny, but I still hate you <3

WOW. I mean… WOW. Never have I been so offended in my life smh

Slop

Minoxidil: Increases blood flow by dilating blood vessels. More blood flow means more resources for hair in the region that the minoxidil is acting in. More resources = hair grows thicker. CANNOT grow hair for follicles that are dead. Effects go away when you stop taking it.

Finestaride (probably the one you’re talking about): blocks DHT that causes male pattern baldness. Prevents hair loss caused by DHT (for most people). Effects last only while you take it.

Hence, people generally combine these things. Finestaride to stop mpb/lessen its pace, while minoxidil to make fine hairs at the hairline grow thicker.

I mean it does have legitimate narrow use cases imo ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

Everywhere? Nawww not rlly

Nah the separatists think that dealing with the US would be easier. By “dealing”, they mean annexation. Sigh…

Yeah, I hope they create structures to reuse the CPP’s analysis and even staff for that matter.

My guess though is that it would be slightly the other way round, where the Canada strong fund creates investment products that the CPP could purchase. But yeah, I hope CPP’s talent is used here. It’s clearly working, and quite competent!

you can’t build a strong political movement on such open individualism.

It’s not really that individualistic of an ethical framework. I would say it’s pretty much in line with how most humans behave. Humans care about themselves, and a group of people they love. This group can be family, friends, and so on. The amount they would sacrifice for someone else depends upon how “close” they feel to that individual/where they rank the interests of that individual in their hierarchy of interests.

Most political movements and alliances throughout history have been built with this understanding.

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not justifying normative assertions using descriptive facts. What I am saying, is that most political movements and alliances were forged in spite of ethical frameworks like mine.

The Russian revolution didn’t happen because the serfs were highly utilitarian and radically altruistic. It happened because they believed that life would improve for themselves and the people they cared about if the communists ruled in place of the Tsar.

You can name any revolution throughout history, and I can guarantee that it happened because of shared interests of the revolutionaries and not purely because of radical altruism.

Here’s my guess from my comprehension of the write-up:

• Crown corp with an independent board of directors (like the CPP).
• Mandate to invest only in Canadian projects.

So my guess is that the funds would most likely be used to fund highly capital intensive projects from the ground up (instead of just buying Shopify stocks for example). This would almost always be infra projects. Depends on how much risk the board would be willing to take for assessed potential reward.

Tbh I’m not really that worried about the competency of the board. The CPP and QPP have been incredibly successful till now ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯.

Ok, let’s bring back the dinos

A piece I think we’re missing. They probably are opening the fund up to the public to invest in for exactly this reason.

If I’m putting in a thousand bucks in the fund through my TFSA, and if PP decides to sell off my highway for pennies on the dollar, my next thousand bucks would be invested in a sniper rifle.

If public involvement in the fund wasn’t there, then what you said would be the likely outcome. I mean at least that’s how I understand it (and if what I’ve understood is correct… Holy hell is the Carney admin smart lol)

I was thinking of this the entire evening. Maybe there’s rebuttal to this point? So they’re talking of opening the fund up to the public as a retail product. They’ve stated that the mandate would be to give market returns. This way, the average individual buys into the fund as well (I would for sure). THAT is how the public becomes interested in the fund’s survival and growth as it is for the CPP.

Let’s say the Tories get in next election. If the fund is giving good returns, then the toriest of Tory voter would get out on the streets if there is even a whiff of the government dissolving it. Now I am exaggerating here, but the point I’m trying to make is that opening it up to retail investors ensures public interest in the fund’s continued existence and expansion.

Oooh thank you so much for linking it! Was quite an interesting watch.

Here’s a resource from the Canadian government in regards to this. Basically, the government says it has improved regulations to reduce methane emissions and that it is taking actions to enforce these regulations better (through improved methane emissions detection) and is cooperating with international partners (which includes the EU) for the same.

Unfortunately, I’m not an expert on this and would love an opinion piece from a climate researcher who doesn’t have a conflict of interest. However, to my untrained eye, it looks like the “good bridge fuel” isn’t totally a con (at least for Canadian gas?).