Fair point. Although one may say this is fine here for comic purposes.

The same argument could be made about the statement “Gods perfect creation”.
But I’d argue that the suggestion of a creationist god expands the distance to scientific contexts even more while simple speech bubbles are fine due to less ideological conflict potential.

Admittedly, I am also rather allergic to religions, which is why I am having a difficult time with that part of the meme.

Nice!

Me too. It’s a science meme community after all.

There’s no evidence for gods though.

media player that plays almost everything

What doesn’t it play?

CEO: okay. You’re replacable anyway. Bye.

Totally approrpiate, since they’re terrorists endangering the well-being of everyone and the planet. Wait…

I’m more with you regarding Israel. However, the context here is China, not Israel.

Also, it’s quite telling that you see nazi germany getting “fucked in the ass” by Russia as something bad.

Wtf. You know it’s 2024, right? Nazi Germany is no more (unless AfD and consorts form the new government).

I was not talking about WW2-times.

Shit! They found me! crawls away

Rebranding a Markov Chain stapled onto a particularly large graph

Could you elaborate how this applies to various areas of AI in your opinion?

Several models are non-markovian. Then there are also a lot of models and algorithms, where the description as or even comparison to Markov-chains would be incorrect and not suitable.

The level of your argumentation:
Are you a firefighter or a medical doctor? If not, you’re obviously in favour of fires, death and disease.
Why aren’t you donating all of your stuff to homeless people? Or are you happy all those people don’t have a home?
Why aren’t you saving the world already???

You know, demanding change and maybe showing some sort of protest does not mean you need to do those things exactly as you would like to see them, especially if those efforts wouldn’t change anything on the larger scale and rather lead to a bunch of problems in your life.

“Funding aggression”. Lol. No wonder Germany got fucked in the ass by Russia and China so many times with such bootlickers among the voting population.

2024 - 22 = 2002.
So probably not nazis. No.

I wonder how you’re breathing. /j

I feel this. Fell into a similar rabbit hole when I tried to get realtime feedback on the program’s own memory usage, discerning stuff like reserved and actually used virtual memory. Felt like black magic and was ultimately not doable within the expected time constraints without touching the kernel I suppose. Spent too much time on that and had to move on with no other solution than to measure/compute the allocated memory of the largest payload data types.

Where do you get this attitude that everything should be provided to you for free and you’re entitled to it?

From (non-capitalistic) utopic ideas, where humans try to be excellent to each other.

And on the flip side, when you’re not spending much money, you’re being accused of ruining the economy. Especially if you like avocados.

The triangle in the background sky is Pascal’s triangle.

But, consider you’re stranded in the wild. All technology lost due to an accident. It’s just you, nature and your skills. How will you know then for how many days the melons you’ve foraged will suffice if you’ve found N of them and eat one a day? /j

Communism is an idea. Just as capitalism is.

What fucked up things people do with that is an entirely different problem.

You can have an oppressive communist regime. You can also have an oppressive capitalistic regime. Both could be really good and beneficial for everyone.

Heck, even a dictatorship could be a good governing system given a wise and benevolent dictator who has the best of all in their mind.

The problem with all of these economic, governmental and societal systems are humans. All of those systems require a specific set of properties from humans in order to work well. The problem is, that not all humans meet those requirements. There is no system which takes humans as they are, with all their good qualities and all of their faults, to get the best out of humanity for humanity.

From an engineering perspective, this is really stupid. But it’s immensely difficult as well. There are no simple solutions to the complexity of humans and their interactions. Which is why systems with self-correcting mechanisms might have an advantage. For example, democracies. However, those too have many pitfalls to address.

Point is, communism is not inherently bad. It can be good, if no one exploits it. Even capitalism can be good, if no one is greedy and exploits others. There’s a lot of ifs. Improve the system or change it. Whatever might be better. But I don’t think it’s as simple as blaming it all on one core idea of a system itself, rather than to look how badly it was implemented.