this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2023
111 points (96.6% liked)
Canada
7106 readers
296 users here now
What's going on Canada?
Communities
π Meta
πΊοΈ Provinces / Territories
- Alberta
- British Columbia
- Manitoba
- New Brunswick
- Newfoundland and Labrador
- Northwest Territories
- Nova Scotia
- Nunavut
- Ontario
- Prince Edward Island
- Quebec
- Saskatchewan
- Yukon
ποΈ Cities / Regions
- Calgary (AB)
- Edmonton (AB)
- Greater Sudbury (ON)
- Halifax (NS)
- Hamilton (ON)
- Kootenays (BC)
- London (ON)
- Mississauga (ON)
- Montreal (QC)
- Nanaimo (BC)
- Oceanside (BC)
- Ottawa (ON)
- Port Alberni (BC)
- Regina (SK)
- Saskatoon (SK)
- Thunder Bay (ON)
- Toronto (ON)
- Vancouver (BC)
- Vancouver Island (BC)
- Victoria (BC)
- Waterloo (ON)
- Winnipeg (MB)
π Sports
Hockey
- List of All Teams: Post on /c/hockey
- General Community: /c/Hockey
- Calgary Flames
- Edmonton Oilers
- MontrΓ©al Canadiens
- Ottawa Senators
- Toronto Maple Leafs
- Vancouver Canucks
- Winnipeg Jets
Football (NFL)
- List of All Teams:
unknown
Football (CFL)
- List of All Teams:
unknown
Baseball
- List of All Teams:
unknown - Toronto Blue Jays
Basketball
- List of All Teams:
unknown - Toronto Raptors
Soccer
- List of All Teams:
unknown - General Community: /c/CanadaSoccer
- Toronto FC
π» Universities
π΅ Finance / Shopping
- Personal Finance Canada
- BAPCSalesCanada
- Canadian Investor
- Buy Canadian
- Quebec Finance
- Churning Canada
π£οΈ Politics
π Social & Culture
Rules
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The necessity of surplus capacity is not mutually exclusive with ecologically efficient solutions to economic problems.
Which is what we are discussing here.
You are attempting to forward an argument that would apply to supply issues, as if my scenario of a single farm were more than just an anecdotal example illustrating one single point of interest. (The economics of the housing market)
My entire point is that there should be multiple providers (owners) that do not collude. The number of farms used in my example is coincidental. You are basically reciting my own argument back to me.
Nothing you say can change the fact that when the capacity to meet and even exceed demand already exists, solving economic problems through excessive new supply, is inordinately wasteful.
Canada does have an unusually small number of houses, relative to its population size, as compared to most other countries. It may be true that we still have a sufficient number of houses to house everyone, but not unlike farming, houses can burn down, get hit by tornadoes, etc. and having an oversupply can also be a social good to ensure that people can still find a roof over their head when things go wrong.
So additional construction is part of the solution, in Canada's case. There's also the fact that buildings need to be located in the places people want to move to, it's not enough to simply have enough. At no point have I disagreed that critical industries should not have redundancies, so I don't know why you are repeating that argument.
That still leaves the fact the current real-estate market has issues that require severe changes to resolve. And that you can't just slap "supply" with a capital "S" on the problem and expect equilibrium to return quickly, efficiently, or indeed, at all.
We are currently in a state of equilibrium. The supply of houses is quite well matched to the demand for houses.
But you must remember that the call at the beginning of this thread was to see an increase in demand. Many are unsatisfied with the lack of demand found out there and see an increase in supply as a way to attract more buyers into the mix.
...what?
It's in equilibrium in the same way that a market with only food available for half the people, finds a price for food, and still allows the poorer half to starve.
The reason demand is low isn't because there aren't people who want to buy homes, or enough homes to buy, even. It's low because there aren't enough homes that people can afford.
My original point was meant to illustrate how this isn't being caused by simple supply and demand.
It's a power inbalance between seller and buyer, which removes the ability of the latter to negotiate pricing.
If two families need a home, but one is so much richer that they can buy two homes, why would the seller sell a home to each family, when they can net more by selling both to the richer one?
Do this long anough, and homeownersship just become another wealth-gap currency where a disproportionate amount of real-estate is held by a few, who "allow" the many to live in it.
Yup. It is necessary for demand to recognize some kind of dividing line between those who have the desire and willingness to shoulder a cost for something and those who do not. "I'm hungry" isn't sufficient to be counted as demand. Everyone gets hungry. The term demand would be completely meaningless if it referred to everyone. It wants to determine what you will give up in order to satisfy your hunger pangs.
Well, duh. Supply and demand is a tool for observing events. Of course it cannot cause anything. This is like saying a kid running away from home wasnβt caused by a neighbour who happened to see the kid exit the door. Of course. If this is your point... Why?
Right, which is why there was originally a call to see an increase in demand. With enough of a rise in demand, the poor families will naturally get included as able participants in the market. But there needs to be something to stimulate that. And expansion of the supply is one suggested way to broach that.
Now you're just being rude, while adding less than nothing.
Did you actually have something to say?
Okay, great?
And, no, there is nothing that I need to say. Nor you, for that matter. Everything that needs to be said was said even before your first comment, and especially before mine. Which is no doubt why you keep saying complete nonsense, and why I make fun of it.
Well I'm happy you've found an effective way to change minds and make the world a better place.
Wait no, that's the opposite of what you're doing. You're killing time until the collapse of civilization by doing your tiny part in causing it.
Well, I should hope I am doing the opposite of changing minds. That would be fucking weird to change someone's mind. The mind they already have is what makes being around them worthwhile.
But, yeah, I agree to your second point. Computing is one of the largest greenhouse gas emitters going, so we are, indeed, destroying humanity by being here. Worse, unlike food, it provides nothing of actual value. But, at least I'm in good company.
Literal interpretation? Along with brain-dead takes about the merits of computer science?
You truly are the "best" of us...
And just in case you actually do have trouble with text comprehension:
/S
Interesting use of the /s[erious] qualifier here.
Are you gonna take off that dunce cap, or are you just an obtuse one trick pony now that you're out of ideas?
Did you know that looking at your comment doesn't cause your comment? Such an interesting point to make, right?
Oh wait.
I have no fucking clue what you just think you said.
But the dumb act doesn't work after you've demonstrated the ability to construct sentences. Then again, you stuck with it long enough that maybe it's not an act...
I'm just as willing to slug it out down in the verbal mud, as I am with actual logic. Just please, don't bore me. You've pulled the intentional misinterpretation trick thrice, and now you're on to nonsensical jabs veiled in attempts at being profound.
Better material, man!
I know. That's what makes it is so funny.
It is up to you to ensure you are enjoying your alone time. Have you considered a social activity with other humans if the solitude of writing messages to a computer program is no longer doing it for you?
It is. But you're assuming I don't have more than just the one hobby, that I do this instead of socializing, and that I don't cut my losses the instant something loses my interest. Which you're beginning to do...
You're going for a rise with annoying word salad, and doing a slightly more verbose version of typing ROFLMAO. That's not interesting.
I assume nothing about you, nor do I give you any thought at all. A solitary activity has no reason to pay mind to anyone who may be peering through the bushes. My alone time is for me and me alone. Comments are written for my entertainment, not for anyone else's.
If the metaphorical creeper behind the bush gets a rise out of something he saw as I take in some alone time, good for him, I guess? I don't know. I have no reason to pay attention to him or his motives. He too is doing his own solitary thing, and it is up to him to figure out how to enjoy his own alone time. If that's what moves him, cool. Whatever floats one's boat. It has nothing to do with me.
You're trying to claim that something which requires more than one participant is 100% about you. That the reasons of the others, matter to you not at all. That your "alone time" can still be alone time when it involves responding to others...
Now that, is funny.
If you only write for yourself, then I suggest you start a diary. Not open a fediverse account π€£. If you're not willing to engage in discussion in good faith, to help everyone involved gain a better understanding of reality, then you should simply fuck off and keep to yourself. Find your kicks without taking it from others.
You talk about it as if you're using a pair of headphones. But really you're walking around with a boombox, because the part that you really enjoy, is annoying others. Not the music.
Like I said, I'm down to slug it out on any level you might like, I really am here for the genuine discussion. But I didn't bring us down here, I simply followed.
It is possible that the software requires more than one participant to function, or perhaps it uses an LLM under the hood (more likely given how frequently hallucinations seem to occur), or who knows what else β there is really no indication of how it works at that level, nor would it matter. The specific implementation details are beyond the user's concern. It is quite true that the tool is a micro-journaling platform which provides additional prompts to spark one's imagination for additional entires into the diary.
Cool theory bro, unfortunately the fediverse pre-dates the prevalence of LLMs. The vast majority of the users that you engage on Lemmy, other fediverse platforms, and their instances, are people, not bots. Of course there's are some bots, but they are easy to spot for anyone who has actually tried conversing with LLMs and been aware of that. They only fool people who don't know how they behave.
If you think the fediverse is intended for "solitary use" with fake interactions provided by LLMs, then you are truly lost, and far more of a conspiracy nut than I would have guessed.
We're done.
It is likely that they are people, but that is, again, just an implementation detail. One does not come to Lemmy β or the Fediverse in general β to engage with people, they come to write their own thoughts for themselves as a solitary activity. When one seeks to engage with people, they go to where people are found, not where there are anonymous usernames that might be people, but who knows, or cares?
We never started. My alone time has always been just me.
ActivityPub is not a note-taking app with AI assist tools. That you would suggest it is, and use it as if it is, is fucking idiotic.
I come to the fediverse to talk to people, and to have my ideas and ideals challenged, because it is the platform that most closely makes the trade-offs I would make, for a platform on which to do so.
Other platforms are so lop-sidedly parasocial due to their algorithm/engagement driven feeds, I'd argue they no longer offer any interaction of value. Yes, the people are there, but the forum of human society, is not.
And if you really think that having engaged with me has left nothing of what I've said in your mind, you are truly delusional. Few people realize it in the moment, when the first seeds of new ideas take root in their thoughts. Even if they do not bloom, unless you are completely devoid of internal monologue, you will continue to process this exchange for a while yet, after it ends. We have started. There is nothing solitary about it.
But I suspect you are using that word to mean something it doesn't. You're trying to point out that everyone acts for their own reasons, as if that's relevant. Of course they do, but it is not.
And even if the majority of users on a platform are machine, that still does not allow you to act in a purely self-centered manner. The fact that any given interaction may be with a real person, must inform your behaviour. You should care. That you don't, is concerning. That concern is why I am going to such lengths to try and provoke introspection in you. You have some growing up to do, and you may claim to be unaffected. Why would admit to anything? But you aren't, only the truly stupid can engage like you have, and not have the exchange sink in at all. You did play at being stupid, which is an infantile tactic that took you three comments to abandon, but you clearly are not.
What vetting mechanisms do you use to ensure that you are talking to people? It is certain that LLMs are being used on here as some of the accounts are explicit that they are LLMs β but being explicit about that is not a requirement. It would be pretty silly to come here to talk to people and then unknowingly end up talking to an LLM.
I don't think it matters, though. I'm not here for people, I am here to use the software, which can be implemented however its developers see fit. How it is implemented is not relevant to me, only those who deliver the software.
Yes, that is a prime example. Writing notes to a piece of software so that it can feedback new information to further your understand of a topic is a solitary activity. Nobody else cares one bit about what you think. It is done for personal benefit, not for the benefit of a group. If there are humans pulling the knobs and levers behind that scenes to make that software work ,so be it, but that is but an implementation detail.
Langauge is fluid. Words can mean whatever you want them to mean. And since I am alone, I don't even have to worry about a shared understanding.
Makes sense. Even if we assume all the accounts here are truly backed by real people and that they are engaging with each other as if it were real social setting β the fact remains that they are anonymous strangers who mean nothing to the world. Of what value would someone with intellect find in speaking to literal nobodies? Smart people have access to talk to other smart, notable people of interest who are proud of their identity and accepting of relationships around that identity. What would draw them here?
The highest purpose of all communication systems, is the increasing of consensus among humans and their societies. The exchange of ideas between person and person, until one agrees with the other, vice versa, or something in-between.
More consensus, allows more secular decision making, furthers co-operation, and therefore increases the rate of advancement of our species. You can't achieve this by putting everyone in their own box with their own LLMs, which will only generate content in response to the occupant of the box. You're likely to end up with each person pulling in a direction of their own hallucination enforced chat session.
Modern systems often do the opposite of increasing consensus. It categorizes and divides us, avoiding confrontation and the exchange of ideas. Amplifying the insane, instead of challenging them. Affirming, not correcting. Modern mainstream social media, several other information technologies, and your misconceived notions of how the fediverse works, must be done away with.
You need to stop feeding the trolls.
Hey, if they're busy with me, they're not busy with someone who'd actually be bothered by them. I like doing this.
And maybe, just maybe, some of the time I get through to one. They'll never admit it in the moment, of course, but set em on a path to do some actual thinking, maybe they'll come out the other side a better person.
Yeah, but as the creator of the thread, I'm also getting notifications π.
Really? I feel like every post I've made, I only got the one notification for each new comment thread, not each comment within one.
Sorry to have bothered you, if that's not how it works.
Haha, no worries. I'm on kbin and it's every comment. Every comment thread would be better.
Ah! That's the difference, then. Maybe you can change it in settings?
Nope, doesn't look like it. I'm sure it's in the backlog!
The fediverse isn't a fucking frontend for chatbots. Even if it effectively were, that's not what it's for. Discussing it as if it is, is disingenuous at best, damaging to its potential, at worst.
I care what you think. You should care what I think. You should care what all of humanity thinks, in aggregate. Current society is far too busy "respecting the beliefs of others" its failing to correct those who are delusional. When met with crazy, we ignore them and leave them to their delusions, instead of arguing their beliefs out, and snapping them back to sanity.
These people vote, buy things, work jobs. They participate in the society we all live in, and that we allow them to go on believing bullshit, affects us all.
In this sense, even the answer you get when asking what an LLM thinks about something matters. It matters a lot.
I'm not "vetting" every engagement I have, I simply assume the majority are with people, until proven otherwise. That you don't, and see the whole network as simply "software" for you to fuck with as you see fit, without regard for the meaning it can be used to convey, is disgusting.
Treating a person as if they're a machine, is rude as hell. Treating a machine, like they were a human, doesn't matter. When unsure, your default behaviour should be the latter, not the former. What does one lose in assuming all users on Lemmy are real? Unnecessarily being cordial when its not needed? In assuming the fediverse is just a giant version of r/subbredditsimulator, you lose its very potential to connect our species. Even if only a tiny subset of it.
If you're not here for genuine engagement with others, you should leave. Switch to using some note taking app with AI tools, where you know you aren't dealing with people. That you'd choose to take your bullshit here into public, with other real users, and then ignore that fact, is offensive.
It's like adopting a tiger cub because you want something cute and cuddly, while ignoring that it will grow into something very different. It's even dumber, because domesticate cats exits.
And semantics exist for a reason. Yes, they are fluid, but not in the way you are suggesting. Words do not mean "whatever you want them to". When a mismatch in comprehension causes a failure of communication, that's a bug, not a feature. Fuck off with your bullshit attempts at profound one-upping. It's pretentious to a weapons grade level of cringe.
As for why people would be on the fediverse? Because its by far the least corrupted communications system on the planet, right now. Especially intelligent individuals who can see that mainstream social media is dying, and toxic as hell.
No, its not ready to be the one main social platform of humanity. But it is certainly the best candidate to become that. Anyone with half a finger on the pulse of the internet, has their eye on the fediverse.