Well, no, that’s incorrect. I said partner_s_, buddy. At least get the basics right when you’re gonna ignore facts. I do like that your take is that an article about women who talked about their experiences with alpine divorce were definitely people who wanted to be abandoned, that sounds correct.

You are a sad weirdo.

I would argue that all of them did not want to be abandoned, yes. But let’s go through them one by one.

Saying “fuck it, just go” sounds like someone who was being pushed to a point where they got frustrated and then exploded on the other person. That definitely sounds like she didn’t want to be abandoned but also that she didn’t want to be forced at the same pace. That doesn’t sound like a case of someone wanting them to leave them behind, especially because they, you know, did say that they were abandoned, ya know?

Person two, same deal. I do not think she wanted to be left alone.

Person three, four, or five, same deal. I do not think they wanted to be left by themselves. That… That is what abandoned means, buddy. Do you not know what abandoned means?

I don’t know where you are getting that the issue is “women are defenseless”. The issue is pretty clearly that these particular women and several like them have been abandoned in unfamiliar places when they did not want to be. If they did, why the fuck would they be complaining about this behavior?

But also, I am arguing that the person I replied to was definitely a misogynist. Or would you like to defend them? I can find you some of their very sexist comments and you can pretend they’re not sexist or whatever and then go back to what I assume will likely be you complaining about circumcisions, but I don’t have time for making fun of you properly. I will just have to assume you’re an MRA now and then not be surprised later to find that it’s true.

Well, in spite of the fact that the person I replied to is definitely a misogynist (and thus sexist), I would argue that there is one hundred percent an intended bias in their message to try to defend men’s (specifically) behavior when it is abusive by downplaying it.

But, thank you for standing up for women! I was unaware that women being infantilized was, in fact, more sexist than saying it is okay for anyone to abandon their partners when they explicitly did not want to be abandoned! Was that your message? Because it’s weird that these women were saying they didn’t want to be abandoned and yet they were and that that fact must be about them being defenseless and not about abusive behaviors on the part of those men. How strange. Can you explain that?

You want to know the fun thing about your fucking dipshitted lie? If you are a man and you call a domestic crisis phone line, they will still give you resources. Resources for abused men, be they straight, queer, cis, or trans, DOES EXIST. In bigger areas, they will attempt to direct you towards more specific help since there might be groups better geared towards your specific situation, but, like the fact you think that a women’s crisis resource would abandon men in need because they are men is such a fucking sexist lie. They might not be able to offer the same level of help, true. But they are there to help people in domestic abuse situations. Go fuck yourself.

I bet if you looked at the numbers, it happens to ciswomen from cismen a statistically large amount of the time. Like at least three times higher than the others per capita. I mean, that wouldn’t be particularly surprising to me because queer couples tend to have different issues, but I am gonna take a wild shot in the dark and say that you have maybe one queer friend and thus know very little about the relationship dynamics.

I think if your problem is that women are complaining about men is sexist, then you are preemptively trying to shield shitty partner behavior when it’s done by men. To me, that reeks of someone that thinks it’s okay to be abusive to women, which is sort of a shitty person indicator, which, as you indicated, is because you are shitty to others.

Lmao, I think most shitty people tend to be pretty fucking obvious. That’s sort of why people have common red flags. Like not dating people who talk down to others or who badmouth servers or who vote Republican. Because those warning signs don’t usually come out of nowhere, but I will grant that sometimes, rarely, shitty people do hide themselves.

It’s sexist in the way that it might depict only women suffering from this type of behavior, but I think that women do tend to be the major demographic that suffers from this type of behavior, which, to me, is a type of sexism that is nowhere near as harmful as the behavior it condemns. It’s not saying they can’t hike.

This type of abuse can happen literally anywhere. You’re out in the city and you’re not walking fast enough? Get ditched with no warning. And that’s the problem. There is usually some modicum of control that the people ditching (you can read this as men) have over the situation that leaves the partner in a vulnerable state. Sometimes they drove. Sometimes they know the way. Sometimes they have the experience. It’s an abuse tactic to do something like that.

So, idk man, calling this sexist and then pretending there’s some unrelated problem to address is a weird take.

Hm, maybe I’m just not in the same places, but I usually see less here than Reddit, but that’s possibly perception bias on my end. I just call shit out when I see it, and this post just looked like it was misogyny because of the… Well, most of it looked pretty misogynistic, but I suppose I was giving the writer some undue benefit of the doubt. That’s on me, actually, I should’ve checked.

I dunno, I guess I just feel sad for people that believe that shit. They are just so fundamentally unhappy with themselves and they don’t know how to fix it.

Lmao, I didn’t even check, but you are right…

I date. I meet plenty of women who tell me on the first date that I must give up something to prove to them my worth or dedication to them. Because the point of the relationship to her is for men to suffer for her sake, and anything the man pursues for his own personal happiness is a her losing out on what should be given to her.

Oh boy, no wonder they have a lot of bad breakup experience!

Well, no. Your post is ragebait. What’s behind it is the same thing it always was. It’s just, ya know, a trend of men not respecting their partners. It’s not new. It’s not dramatized. It’s just that typically men do not put in the same level of thought, care, and compassion for their partners as women typically do.

These stories are pretty standard abuse, honestly. I’ve heard similar types of things about shitty partners abandoning someone at amusement parks, concerts, and other venues because they got pushed into something and then didn’t “fulfill their end of the bargain” or keep up to the level that the first person wanted. Yeah, it is usually men that do this, but it’s not exclusively men. Just, ya know, most of the time.

Like, I don’t really understand how your bad breakup experience covers for this. You are downplaying the event without knowing both sides as well. Why is it okay to do that, but it isn’t okay for some to potentially dramatize it? You’re not even involved, so I think it’s worse to do this weird defending, because it sorta feels like you might be misogynist. Like, them’s the vibes.

I don’t know why you think it’s 90% of people making this up, but, uh, okay, buddy. There’s definitely no potential abusive behaviors here that a partner should look out for, it’s just 90% chance it was a bad day or a liar or something, and not shitty or abusive partners.

I don’t see anyone else writing sternly worded letters!

I don’t know that I can fully blame every soldier for that. There’s plenty of kids who have no idea what they’re joining. There’s plenty of them they get disillusioned by their service, too. Do they all deserve to die?

Like, the military does massive propaganda campaigns to lure in young and impressionable teenagers. And some of the recruits are just people that need a place to live, sleep, and eat. I can understand why someone would be against all of them, but I don’t think I can. There’s a lot of extremely poor people that have few other prospects, and the way the US pushes success = status really makes it hard for me to think that the brainwashed deserve death.

You wanna stop the military? Give everyone a decent standard of living, and that’ll do it.

Okay, clearly you don’t understand. Let’s review.

If I flip 100 of my infinite coin, how accurate will my estimated mean be in comparison to my true mean?

Let’s assume we flip 50 heads, so we reasonably assume there is 50% chance to flip heads. Well, our 95% confidence interval (the usual one used) says that there is about a 9.8% range our true heads mean could be in. That means, 5% of the time, our actual heads flipping percent is outside that 40.2 - 59.8% range.

Now, here’s the biasing that we factor in: we’re gonna assume that our flipping chance is a standard deviation model, and that our actual mean will fall into this pattern. We assume, more or less, that people’s opinions fall into this model, too, and that isn’t relatively weird for polling data to assume, even if it isn’t completely representative of the true population.

If you flip, say, 1000 coins instead and got 50%, how much does that range shrink? I mean, it doesn’t shrink by a factor of 10, but by a factor of √10. This shrinks us by ~3.16, so the range becomes 46.9 - 53.1%. That is a lot smaller, but not, ya know, 10 times smaller.

The point is that having 5 times less participants would only widen the gap the true participants by about 2.2x… So instead of 2.7% interval, you would have like +/-1.25%. That’s, again, not going to shift the likely guess by much.

Because that’s just how random sampling works. You have a chance to be outside that confidence interval, but it’s just not very likely. Because increasing the confidence percent is ALSO a square root ratio. At 99% confidence, the range becomes 3.57%.

So, yes, surveying 1200 people, assuming random sampling, is pretty representative of the US. Your goal is to find the biases that shift the data away from representing the true mean, not to question how sampling works because math is not on your side. Sampling works, period.

And using weighted data for categories? Again, since all of the data was transformed in the same way, I don’t see the problem, unless you have a problem with transformations in general. This is a higher level concept in statistical analysis, but this is probably just averaging out 8 questions into a 0-100% scale, which isn’t particularly obscure or unique in sampling. If anything, this should shift the data closer to 50%, so any deviations away from 50% would be notable.

Simply put, your problem with the sampling method? Doesn’t exist.

Do you not know how statistics work? You can make a pretty good estimate of a population with a relatively small sample size. That’s why polls work.

Like, the only issue is finding out if your poll is biased or not. This is pretty bog standard statistical analysis.

But, as an example, imagine you had infinite coins. How many heads do you think you have to flip on randomly selected coins to make a relatively good guess on the chance of flipping heads? Because my guess is that you wouldn’t say infinite. You could probably get a good guess with 100. Flipping more coins just makes your guess more accurate, but it will be pretty close to the answer.

Basically, proportion of population is just going to affect the confidence interval, and that is basically within 2.7% points for the 43% say bad and 2.5% for the 71% who do not approve.

That’s… Accurate enough.

Probably because you wanted to be pedantic and unserious.

That is not as smart of a question as you want it to be. Unfortunately for you, not everything can be modeled mathematically, or if you wish to be extremely minute, not everything can be currently mathematically modeled efficiently and precisely because it would require knowledge or resources far eclipsing what we have available. If you just want to push up your glasses and ACKSHUALLY me, then it’s also possible to do anything, hurr hurr.

To even fucking PRETEND that we can model a brain right now is hilarious to me, but to equate that to LLMs is downright moronic. Human brains are not created, trained, or used in any way similar to LLMs, no matter what anyone says, but you are insinuating that they are somehow similar??? They are a simulation of a learning algorithm, trained through brute force tactics, and used for pattern completion. That’s just not how that works!

And yet, in spite of the petabytes of data they fucking jam into these pieces of shit, they still can’t even draw hands correctly. They still can’t figure out the seahorse emoji. They still don’t know why strawberry has two Rs! They continuously repeat only the things they hear, and need to have these errors fixed manually. They don’t know anything. And that’s why they aren’t intelligent. They are fed data points. They create estimations. But they do not understand what the connections between those points are. And no amount of pointing at humans will fix that.

Just as a brain is not a giant statistics problem, LLMs are not intelligent. LLMs are basically large math problems that take what you put into them and calculate the remainder. That isn’t an emergent behavior. That isn’t intelligence at all.

If I type into a calculator 20*10 and it gives me 200, is that a sign of intelligence that the calculator can do math? I never programmed it to know what 10 or 20 or 200 were, though I did make it know what multiplication is and what digits and numbers are, but those particular things it totally created on its own after that!!!

When you type a sentence into an LLM and it returns with an approximation of what a response sounds like, you should treat it the same way. People programmed these things to do the things that they are doing, so what behavior is fucking emergent?

Holy shit. This is the craziest article to write about one of the shittiest videos I have ever seen.

That video is glazing the fuck out of LLMs, and the creator knows jackshit about how AIs or even computers work. What a fucking moron.

So, like, the point of the experiment is that LLMs will generate outputs based on their inputs, and then those outputs are interpreted by an intermediary program to do things in games. And the video is trying to pretend that this is LITERALLY a new intelligent species emerging because you never told it to do anything other than its initial goal! Which… Isn’t impressive? LLMs generate outputs based on their datasets, like, that’s not in question. That isn’t intelligence, because it is just one giant mathematics problem.

This article is a giant pile of shit.

Yeah, considering I went over how there are Republicans that have actively lynched people for their race, I think I covered that pretty well, but let’s pretend I didn’t because not everyone can understand things the first time.

Tough on crime is passive because it is not about saying white people are superior, a thing Republicans do. It is also not actively telling people that Muslims are worse than dogs, a thing Republicans do. While the mechanisms of the state actively target minorities to a significantly higher degree, this is passively racist because it relies on underlying connections to tie minorities to crimes.

See, the sad part about your argument is that Republicans platform and actively defend the people who shoot minorities and actively defend the people who do so. Motherfuckers out here pretending the people who shoot up black churches and synagogues are anything other than Republicans, are hilariously bad faith. Anyone who thinks the Democrats are somehow just as racist as hate crime doers and defenders has shit for brains. That’s active racism, and yeah, it’s fucking worse.

Unless you think killing minorities and telling people to kill minorities is better than just saying “we’re tough on crime”. Do you think that?

Democrats are just as racist as the Republicans

That’s just not true. They are obviously not even close to the same. They are both racist (and even both very racist), but actively engaging in white supremacy IS WORSE and I shouldn’t have to explain why. You can argue that they are both bad, but I think the side that is okay with a former police officer chasing a black man down with his truck and shooting him might be worse.

I get that you want to equate these two, that any amount of racism is somehow just as bad, but it just fucking isn’t, and I’m tired of this “both sides” bullshit when one side has active lynchers in its midsts and brandishes at the sight of a black person. Make an argument that calls out the “tough on crime” narrative that passively destroys the lives of racial minorities, but don’t call them the same. That’s such a weenie position.