Not “AI”. It’s a standard machine learning model Seems to be some image segmentation plus extras using PyTorch. The original source never mentioned the term “AI”, so why did the Guardian decide to bandwagon jump? The research and discovery is just as exciting without smacking the AI label on it.
How much time have you got? I guess the biggest factor is that referendums are hard to pass in Australia, especially when the campaign becomes partisan. And this one was VERY partisan. But also Australia has a particular type of racist ignorance when it comes to our First Nations Peoples and our colonial history in general. We’re now currently the only settler colonial nation that has not recognised its First Nations Peoples in their constitution. Settler colonialism is not a competition, but if it was Australia kind of wins the gold. I say that as a white Australian.
I’m Norwegian and even though the Saami have their own government within the nation state of Norway there are still plenty of people in denial of the apartheid that was done against them. For each year the Sami government is delegitemised and it’s done through nationalistic fervour.
Nationalism and intellectual suicide go hand in hand.
There’s a lot of different views, many with some truths to it. I’ll try to give an answer but please take into account my answer is quite bias too.
The question, unlike the title of the article, the actual vote is on
whether the Constitution should be changed to include a recognition of the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
The problem is, how exactly or what exactly is an Aboriginal/Torres strait Islander voice. It’s not like Australia is voting to not give these groups voting rights like many articles seem to suggest.
It’s about what does this voice mean, do they have the power over government, can they stop laws, does it even help, whose even in it?
And there is no answer real answer, most answers I see are “it’s about creating a voice” or “we want to see Aus support before putting into action” etc (this may have changed later but that was the initial info I was getting), so you basically asked the Australian people to vote into changing the consitution on a potential something? Which for many feels like a permanent change or an unknown thing.
So all the no side had to do was be like “oh if you don’t know, then best to err on the safe side and vote no”. “Who knows what this could do”. “You can always wait and change it later”.
Imo the votes would have been very different if it instead just asked “would you like to see an Aboriginal / Torres strait Islander voice in government” and not touched the constitution. Or if they just made the voice/team/group and showed Aus how helpful it was before asking them to change the consitution.
And (I’m prob showing more bias here) if the yes side didn’t just call everyone racist who looked at the no vote (which I believe many are swing voters), it couldve provided enough time/listening to make changes to the argument that would change the voters. For example if they made it clear that it would just be used to support better decision making and help understanding etc. Though I can’t be too harsh when many of the no side arguments felt objectively like lies.
Racism and lack of bipartisan support were likely huge factors as other commenters said. There was also division between Indigenous people regarding the efficacy of the Voice to Parliament. Some saw it as a great step forward, others saw it as toothless or symbolic, others still believed it would delegitimise their sovereignty over the land. The Opposition latched onto this for their own gains I believe. Together with Fair Australia (conservative lobbying group) they dealed in fear, misinformation and distrust. They absolutely dominated over social media and took control of the narrative very quickly. This became a lot easier for them due to the cost of living crisis. Take a White Australian in the outer suburbs or rural areas, tell them to care about this thing they don’t understand instead of their rising mortgage payments and cost of groceries, when the Opposition is feeding into their latent ignorance and distrust of First Nations people that all Australians have, and you’ve lost them already.
This reads eerily similar, so basically the same parallel that the U.S. and Australia have been struggling with together for the last 20 years (and assuredly before then).
Not Australian, but looking through the proposal, it seemed pretty basic. It’s pretty sad that even a relatively toothless measure like this couldn’t pass. Though I’m definitely not throwing stones, I’m in America.
And, frankly, without conservatives in general. They’re an existential threat, starting from the fact that they’re opposed to doing anything about climate change (well anything that doesn’t make it worse, anyhow), not to mention that a nontrivial percentage of them would love to see me and others like me murdered because of our gender identity
I worked in the UAE for a while. It was so obvious that there is effectively a slave class. The Emiratis think they’re gods and look down on everyone else a disposable and subhuman. That entire region is fucked but the West turns a blind eye because of money. FIFA, FIA, etc.
The monthly prices users pay per maid are according to race, the website states – with employers charged less for the services of a black maid. “Filipinas AED3,500 ($952)/month” and “Africans AED2,700 ($735)/month,” it states
The website states that Filipina maids require a bedroom of their own to sleep in, while African maids do not.
Nobody does racist slavery quite like the Gulf Arab countries, do they? I don’t know which is more grim, that or the disclaimer:
“Zero legal liability. Maid stays on our visa, so you’ll never have to worry about any legal consequences. If anything goes wrong (eg runaway maid, pregnancy), we’re responsible to deal with any lawsuits or visits to police stations, not you.”
IE, you can sexually abuse your underpaid migrant worker without fear of legal consequences, and the employer can then revoke their visa. What a great service! /s
That’s simply not true. If you hide ammunition, fighters amongst civilians, to use the as meat shield or their deaths as propaganda, they become collateral damage.
It’s horrible, but Hamas is counting on this! They could avoid this, by not hiding behind their own people.
Targeting civilians specificaly is a war crime.
EDIT: please, do explain how it’s ok to hide behind civilians… sorry, this doesn’t help
True, they (israel government) fucked up the place, in so many ways. They’re not the only actors, but they’re the ones with most power and possibilities.
They are still effing up, because we’re talking about men of war with stupidly large guns, afraid (with good reason) for their whole people, who maybe know victims, know a hostage… everybody knows what happens when warriors are mad… so why the fuck poke that bear?
There’s no good move. If israel doesn’t react, hamas will attack again, because hamas wants to exterminate every jew, not peace. If they react, they have to take out civilians because hamas uses them as human shields. And now with all that rage, the most racists and extremists from each side will have a chance to assuage their bloodlust.
Hamas have ruined Gaza’s future in a way that, in almost 3 decades of following this conflict, I never thought would be possible. And the racists in Israels government are living their wet dream.
so if hamas is exploiting civilians for their own protection, they should kill their victims too? cool dude. you’re totally not justifying killing civilians! it’s not technically a war crime, so its fine! fuck. off.
What is it with beehaw users and being super eager to kill kids?
Youre the 5th Ive seen who is just so damn excited to excuse killing civilians. You understand thats not a normal thing for rational adults to want, yes?
oh, sorry, did you not say killing crowds of civilians in the hopes that a hamas member was among them was a totally excusable act, and labelled as just unfortunate collateral damage in war?
I could have sworn you said that, but my lemmy app does bug out sometimes, maybe I clicked on the wrong comment.
So you dont think killing crowds of innocent people in the hope that there might have been a terrorist among them is excusable?
If you hide ammunition, fighters amongst civilians, to use the as meat shield or their deaths as propaganda, they become collateral damage.
Huh. Weird, that looks like your text copy and pasted right here, where you say that killing civilians under the claim of targeting “hidden fighters” among their ranks is excusable collateral damage of war.
Same argument used to defend the atomic bombing of hiroshima, another well known war crime. The city had a well established military headquarters and arms depot, tucked away in the center of civilian housing and business, after all. Just more collateral damage, right?
No, see, cause Im not some sadistic loser, I understand you can address threats in a crowd without killing the crowd.
There are plenty of non lethal incapacitation weapons that are specifically designed for hostiles surrounded by civilians. There are plenty of options for not killing innocent people that arent “guess I gotta die!”
You arent being argued against in bad faith, youre just being argued against by decent human beings. I know, shocking for you, but normal folk arent excited to kill palestinians.
that frankly isn’t the situation that we’re dealing with. the idea that israel either has to let Hamas operate unchallenged or kill civilians is a vast oversimplification of how conflict works, and giving the IDF blanket permission to kill civilians if it also hurts Hamas is fucking monstrous. you suck.
all civilian casualties are inadmissible. its not wrong, its a moral imperative, and one that the state of Israel is blatantly disregarding. the framing that “okay, these civilian causalities are okay” is fucking monstrous, and gives a ready made excuse for Israel to escalate violence in Gaza.
You’re right, the Israeli should just say “too bad guys, they have hostages, we can’t shoot in that direction, check mate” and let hamas slaughter them
the scenario you’re imagining doesn’t exist. this isn’t a rock paper scissors thing, where Israel either shoots through hostages to kill insurgents or dies themselves. if Hamas is hiding amongst civilians, they aren’t attacking Israel, they’re hiding. if they’re attacking Israel, they aren’t in a crowd of Palestinian civilians. the IDF does not need to have a shootout with civilians in the crossfire to protect its people. the IDF does not need to bomb civilian residences to wage war against an insurgency.
you are so willing to conflate the two, assume that Israel must kill or be killed themselves. that is a fucking falsehood. there is so fucking much a military force can do to defend against attack that doesn’t involve shelling apartment buildings, shooting into crowds, and otherwise being monsters.
for what it’s worth i think we’ve about exhausted what can be said on this topic past your own comment; i don’t think further responses between you and @khalic will really go anywhere and i’ve already nuked a bunch of the discussion downthread because it devolved completely.
No one is saying “all these civilian casualties are ok”, stop oversimplifilying the situation.
I know it’s tempting to make blanket statements about moral imperatives from your armchair, religion has been doing that to us for centuries, but it turns out the real world is actually full of moral dilemmas, where there IS no outcome where no one dies, and all you can do is pick the least bad option.
“All civilian casualties are inadmissible” is the coldest of cold takes, right there next to, “well I don’t think anyone should have a war at all!” Like, great, thanks, why didn’t anyone think of that?
i don’t think anyone should have a war at all. there, are you happy? i’m frankly uninterested in litigating what hypothetical circumstances under which it might be okay to kill a civilian.
I would argue a blanket statement of “killing civilians is always reprehensible” is a vast oversimplification of how conflict works.
Yeah, it sucks, war sucks, and it often turns out that the least bad option involves a decision where innocent people die. I know it feels like a hot take to say we shouldn’t give blanket permission to kill civilians, but it turns out no one is claiming that.
This thread makes it clear that lemmy commenters are not equipped to debate the vanilla trolly problem, let alone the Iranian/Palestinian conflict.
“killing civilians is always reprehensible” as a moral statement has nothing to do with the mechanics of conflict. i’m telling you what i believe. giving room for acceptable civilian casualties in a moral framework provides a ready made justification for bad actors, that so long as they present a situation as looking enough like the acceptable kind of civilian casualty then its fine that an innocent person was killed.
i am taking issue with the rhetoric of acceptable casualties. no. there are only casualties, and they are all horrific. rhetoric that is not an explicit condemnation of war can be used as a justification for it.
Anytime you are doing any kind of military or police action within a civilian area there is always the risk of unintended civilian harm.
If police and military forces took this doctorine that any amount of risk is too much then they simply would be unable to operate.
There has to be a certain amount of acceptable civilian risk and that should be proportional to the threat you are attempting to stop.
Just to clarify, I’m not advocating that Israel is taking acceptable risks. But I am advocating that those risks will always exist with ANY police or military action and the primary debate is over where the red line of acceptable/unacceptable is.
Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas in the world, it’s also majority landlocked and has been under a naval and air blockade for nearly 2 decades.
You can make the case about the selection of which some specific civilian areas Hamas utilizes are intended to maximize the outage if struck, but ultimately there is NOWHERE inside Gaza that isn’t a civilian area, period. It’s just a matter of degrees i.e. retail shops vs schools.
Just looked at the gaza satellite map to be sure. There are kms of fields between the border and most cities. They’re cowards hiding behind their people.
Those are literally watched by automated and remote control machine guns, as well as 24/7 surveillance drones.
So you’re military strategic insight is to sit in an open field, just outside of range of the remote control 50 cal turrets, and wait for the drone to drop a PGM?
Feel free to browse my comment history. I’m no apologist for terrorists acts, but I’m also not blind to the realities on the ground, and what obstacles any opposition militant group within Gaza would have to plan around.
No, I’m saying that any military strategy has to operate around it’s own operational and environmental constraints, and the capabilities and obstacles of the opposing force.
Whatever you’re opinions are on any conflict, you should still understand that rational actors will respond accordingly to their constraints.
Rational doesn’t mean moral, it means they have a clear mission and objective, and a plan to achieve it.
You’re suggesting that instead of being combat effective, they should instead suicide themselves by operating in an open field in close proximity, and with no cover, to a vastly superior force. That would be irrational.
Who gives a fuck if it’s combat effective when it kills your people? If you’re not fighting for the lives of your people? What are you fighting for? In the case of Hamas, the answer is in their charter: kill all jews. They admit it themselves ffs.
I’m providing an extremely high level and simplified outline of the operational and strategic constraints for militants operating within Gaza, not moral commentary on it.
If you want my opinions, or moral judgments, feel free to browse my comment history. Jump into any of those conversations if you disagree.
Sorry, I get your point. It’s getting late here, I got carried away. You are right, it’s a tactically valid choice, but I really hope I’d kill myself before I do something like that, but life can fuck you up real bad so who knows…
Hamas could argue that the IDF is hiding behind their civilian population as well. It’s simply not a coherent defense for indiscriminate violence, you can’targue that one side is collateral damage and the other are victims.
Israel claims they are only striking “based on intelligence” but its obvious from the reports inside Gaza that this is not true, they’re bombing at random with the explicit goal of punishing Gazan civilians for being blockaded in Gaza with Hamas.
Obama changed the military’s criteria for civilian deaths so he could pretend his numbers were lower.
I don’t know that I’d call it an opinion. Civilian deaths are an eventuality we have no choice but to accept, especially here in the US, where we’re making war in six, seven, or eight countries at once and it’s normal.
The fact that people don’t understand the differences in style and purpose between fact-based reporting and opinion pieces is a travesty. There is no way this can be anything other than an opinion piece because of its topic and tone. Whether you agree or disagree or find its position to be self-evident is irrelevant. It simply does not meet the standards of traditional fact-based reporting. Which people today don’t seem to understand the value of.
The travesty is how many people are unable to say this out loud. Everyone is stuck in their black & white tribalism, making them blind for their own sides atrocities.
You can be pro Palestine and still condemn Hamas. You can be critical of the Israeli government and still grief for all the innocent Hamas victims. It's not actually that hard to be a decent human being.
I can be pro-palestinian people and still think that after several decades of not being able to suppress the violent factions inside their nation, they should completely bail off from that general area.
All nations are built and maintained by violence, either directly or by threat of it.
It’s a core component of sovereignty. To be able to call your government sovereign you must have the capacity to resist both external and internal actors from being able to overthrow you.
You must also be willing and able to use violence against those under your rule who disobey your laws (i.e, arresting a murderer).
That’s probably the norm. Finland, the posterboy of peace, started its independence with a civil war and continued by joining the Nazis in WW2 against Soviet Union.
Seems to me that there are two kinds of nations on this planet: dead ones and those that were at some point based on violence.
The travesty is how many people are unable to say this out loud. Everyone is stuck in their black & white tribalism, making them blind for their own sides atrocities.
Personally I don’t want to say it out loud because I’m just so mentally exhausted from the screaming. I know (like know, not just feel) that if I say this out loud in a more public space then somebody is gonna scream at me over it. And I just don’t want that anymore. I feel in this instance it’s better to just keep silent because I just hate it when people get so uppity at me over this kind of thing.
How does this help reducing noise? I think with modern cars, tires generate notably more noise than the engine unless the speed is below 30 km/h. I hear no difference between a petrol car and electric when they’re driving past me at 50-60 km/h.
They make make more noise while accelerating which I would presume would be something that happens often in a city center with lots of stops and starts.
Focusing on passenger cars never will be, as their co2 output is only around 15% of the total in the EU. Every little bit helps, sure, but even getting completely rid of cars wouldn’t be enough.
Except that 15% isn’t nearly enough to even really make a dent into climate change as a whole, and there is no way in the near foreseeable future to get anywhere near “nobody uses cars or anything that causes co2 emissions to move around.”
Even if everyone swapped to electric cars or alternative methods of transport asap, which would cause a huge spike in emissions from their manufacturing (~twice of an ICE car) and all the infrastructure work required to handle their charging and all the extra maintenance of roads required from having vehicles two to three times as heavy as most ICE cars run on them, let’s assume we’d get a reduction of 50% for personal transport - you’ve just spend an absurd amount of money and effort to reduce the overall emissions by 7.5%.
If 7.5% reduction is the goal that would be much cheaper, easier and faster to carve out of the energy sector, which currently accounts for around 70% of total co2 because majority of it is still made using fossil fuels.
We need to do it eventually, sure, and everyone who can afford to get an electric car should do so, but it’s like tackling plastic pollution by removing disposable straws and forks instead of concentrating on the massive amounts used by manufacturing sector - visible and gives everyone a nice fuzzy feeling they are doing something, while not actually achieving much. A good cause, but not the most pressing one by far.
Principally agree. If we want to make a dent we need to be going into carbon capture mode - as most likely we’re already seeing cascading effects from the emissions already caused. Permafrost melting and releasing methane, the ocean warming up and holding less CO2.
But the numbers you use are horrid.
The average EV weighs maybe around 300 kg more than a comparable fossil car. Sure, the Hummer EV weighs a fuckton, but a regular Hummer ICE isn’t exactly a Lotus either.
The other negative trend in weight is the SUV-ification of society, and if you swap a Civic for an iX you get double padding.
Lifetime emissions cast a much bigger shadow than production emissions and most EV’s are climate positive one year in (average driving length, average electricity mix).
All of that said; don’t buy an EV to save the planet. Buy an EV because it’s a better car and better for your wallet. Depending on a multitude of factors these may not hold true for you yet, and you should probably just keep driving what you drive.
People focus way too much on the downsides of EV’s like charging infrastructure issues or waiting to charge.
All vehicles have tradeoffs and just because you’re used to filling petrol doesn’t mean it’s a pleasant activity. I’ve spent way too much time freezing at the petrol pump in the winter.
I actually did the math and found I’ve been spending way too much time at the petrol pumps. Driving electric I plug in at home. Takes a few seconds just like plugging in your phone.
Going out for petrol takes ten minutes. Driving on trips my bladder is still the weakest link, but every now and then charging adds a few minutes here and there, sometimes more.
Estimated net average time savings per year over the last four years is about 3-4 hours driving electric instead of ICE. That includes an hour less filling in freezing conditions.
But I digress.
TLDR; Climate is fucked, but EV’s can be good fun. Don’t feel obliged to buy one just yet, wait until it makes sense.
15% is a significant dent. It's 15%! Even half of that is significant. And I'd sooner say we transition to encouraging just about any other kind of transit via our city and infrastructure design (efforts are ongoing, so it's not like no progress has been made) rather than just encouraging everyone to switch to an electric vehicle, but there are all kinds of benefits to restricting vehicle traffic in city centers besides climate change too, probably helping them to sell this policy. It's still a reduction that helps climate change, but it's one of those ones like straws and plastic bags that are much easier to legislate even if it's not the largest reduction that could be made. I guess I just disagree that anything other than the largest slices of the pie are worth putting any focus on, because if it was easy to reduce those large slices of the pie, we'd have done it. Even those large slices can probably be broken up into smaller slices, of which some may be easy to deal with.
theguardian.com
Hot