I've taken great pleasure in cooking and strobist portrait photography. For cooking, I'm naturally terrible but even I can follow America's Test Kitchen recipes and my family has really appreciated the results! Cooking is an opportunity to have a hobby that also improves your family's quality of life. For photography, I started out with a pretty cheap mirrorless and cheap Chinese lights (Godox), and have been getting progressively better at taking pictures (by watching YouTube and practicing a lot) for 10 years. It's a lot of fun for me and at the same time creates memorable photos that my family go back to again and again.
I stopped reading when the author started to lean into how this must be a representation of "whiteness." No, how about it's an artifact of Internet enabled oligarchic capitalist technocracy like you started with? Ironically, the author's performative racism is part of the same trend.
> Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead.
That works as long as there is not a pervasive trend to push the 'provocative thing', also as long as the 'provocative thing' is not something that would be totally off-limits if applied to a different group or category. Imagine an article which complained about thing X being a representation of blackness in a negative context and decide for yourself whether you would consider it in the same light.
> Internet enabled oligarchic capitalist technocracy
Well let's see, American capitalist oligarchy has a deep root in the defeat of Reconstruction, specifically the fact that the planter class was not liquidated and its land was not redistributed - because of the continued insistence on white superiority and political domination.
Technocracy is similar, it's a manifestation of the fear of radical democracy and the notion that people are incapable of self-government, typically expressed in racialized (white man's burden, etc) form. It's very easy to see that line worming through the past few hundred years of history if you actually try.
It's unfortunate that you stopped reading in the one paragraph that touched on whiteness when there's so much of the article left to be read after that. Had you continued, you'd see that they don't stay on that subject. In fact, a CTRL+F for "white" shows that the instance of "whiteness" in that paragraph is the last time that "white" shows up at all - and every time "white" shows up before that paragraph, it's about colors in a coffee shop. They touch on it because someone that they interviewed mentioned it, and then they move right back to how it's "an artifact of Internet enabled oligarchic capitalist technocracy" in the very next paragraph.
I don't know why people so willingly bury their heads in the sand sometimes...
I have the same response to people randomly mentioning how the solution to everything is accepting Jesus into my heart. Whether secular or non secular, this kind of thing is a tell for low quality content because it is indicative of the uncritical acceptance of nonsense. I'm aware of what they're peddling, and I don't have time for people who think like this, which is different from burying my head in the sand, I suspect.
You came into this thread and said that you threw your hands up and walked away from the article when someone that they interviewed mentioned "whiteness". It was then pointed out to you that that was the only time in the article that race was discussed, and that everything you didn't read was actually about the subject you hoped it would've been about.
You proceeded, just now, to double-down and refuse to hear any more of it. In point of fact, you're not "aware of what they're peddling" because you're demonstrating a clear misunderstanding of the article to those of us who actually read it, and you seem proud to do so after you've been called out for it.
That's the definition of burying your head in the sand. Hell, your reaction to my comment is basically you trying to wiggle all the way down so that you're buried up to the waist. But hey, you do you. Ignorance is bliss, and such.
Would it be fair to observe at this point that reading a sarcastic and contemptuous paragraph about how I should be more open minded about casual racism in my sociological fluff pieces is creating a bit of cognitive dissonance for me?
For anyone wondering, the paragraph in question is: "It wasn’t just the spaces that were homogenous, but also the customers, Gonzalez observed: “If you go into the cafes, they’re predominantly white. But [Kloof Street] is historically a neighbourhood for people of colour.” Only certain types of people were encouraged to feel comfortable in the zone of AirSpace, and others were actively filtered out. It required money and a certain fluency for someone to be comfortable with the characteristic act of plunking down a laptop on one of the generic cafes’ broad tables and sitting there for hours, akin to learning the unspoken etiquette of a cocktail bar in a luxury hotel. The AirSpace cafes 'are oppressive, in the sense that they are exclusive and expensive', Gonzalez said. When whiteness and wealth are posed as the norm, a kind of force field of aesthetics and ideology keeps out anyone who does not fit the template." No support is given for any of the gross generalizations made, and they go unchallenged by the journalist. Does this lend credence to the rest of the article?
The point is that those cafes are a symbol of gentrification, as they were created and decorated by wealthy people alien to that neighborhood. Certainly a lot of well-to-do establishments are not exactly friendly environments to those who fall out of their target demographics, even if the people might be local residents. You fixate upon race when the disparity in wealth is just as important in this line of critique.
I understand the point, and I'm suggesting that the author's uncritical acceptance of all the assumptions in the quote makes it difficult for me to take the author as a credible objective observer. For example, is there any actual analysis done to support the idea that these cafes are not owned by locals? In the earlier part of the piece, she mentions that even "local" folks converged on the same aesthetic. Is it a good notion that a neighborhood be "for people of color?" Why are racially segregated neighborhoods good, again?
That paragraph is preceded by two other paragraphs of the author largely quoting and paraphrasing a particular academic. The author has chosen to accept that academic's thesis in order to buttress the overall argument advanced by the essay. Why is it necessary for the author to refute or dispute the academic? Especially compared to any other expert, narrative, or paragraph cited by the essay as evidence for its position? Your obsession with this paragraph, again, is bewildering. This is not an article about hipster cafes in South Africa, that is simply an example that was advanced. If you have an issue with it, do your own research and debunk it yourself. Read the source material and find real holes in it, not just comment thread theorizing. Find yourself actual counter-narratives and analysis that proves such. To do otherwise seems like unnecessary quibbling.
I would acquiesce that the tone of the last three sentences in my most recent response can possibly be off-putting, but I don't think it really changes or negates the overall point I clearly made in a non-sarcastic tone during the rest of the comment and the one before it. Nor is it fair to say that I'm telling you to "be more open minded about casual racism", which is a clear misinterpretation of what I have been saying here.
Edit: On that last point - by all means, disagree with the point the person they're interviewing is making regarding race, but don't ignorantly assume that the rest of the piece, and the whole point of the article, is now entirely about race and refuse to hear anything else about it. It's not fair to gripe about it not talking about how "it's an artifact of Internet enabled oligarchic capitalist technocracy" when you put the thing down right before it spent a lot of time doing just that. You don't walk out of a movie theater right before the climax and then complain about how the film didn't resolve anything, do you?
Edit 2: It's interesting to go back and read the rest of the comments here now that this post has been up for a while. Most people on HN seem to be discussing points around the concept you wanted discussed, but your comment is the only one griping about race.
You've made tons of edits, so it is perhaps more challenging to respond than it might be. Everyone uses a thresholding approach for their consumption of media. I read the author's uncritical acceptance of a loaded quote as an indication that she is an ideologue, and it made me distrust her opinion. You don't like that, and that's fine, but I have a right to my opinion and a right to express that as an assessment around the quality of the piece. It's cool that HN is having an interesting discussion; they probably thought we covered the racial element here.
For what it's worth, there's a stark difference between the phrases, "I read the author's uncritical acceptance of a loaded quote as an indication that she is an ideologue," and the way you phrased your first post. One comes off more reasonable, the other comes off, well... here we are lol. Just my $.02. But you're probably tired of hearing from me (and I oughta stop flogging a dead horse) so I'll fuck off. Have a good one!
I mean, I'm a pretty reasonable character and I imagine you are too in real life. It's tough to be pithy and come across the way we want at the same time. In any case, have a good rest of your day, honestly wishing you all the best.
Its odd to me how normal it has become for some white folks to through up their hands in outrage and disgust, crying racism and discrimination at the slightest mention of anything relating to race or culture.
Not saying I agree with the article or anyone in this thread,(though after reading the excerpt the parent is upset about I think I do agree with the the article) just that this has become rather common and predictable. Is this what people mean when they talk about white fragility? I dont know.
On the contrary, the struggle is to not see it. The article's point is "color/diversity" is better than sameness.
Look again for other keywords, "sameness", "homegen"-suffixes.
E.g. The summary
> coffee shops are physical filtering algorithms, too: they sort people based on their preferences, quietly attracting a particular crowd and repelling others
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
Technically yes, but CPU only. In theory it might be possible to support ANE/MPS, but it wouldn't be useful in practice because Linux software isn't built to use them, and there wouldn't be a good way to expose them.
Under what moral philosophy is it acceptable to hold people responsible for things they had no part in? Other than your abstract idea that "history should be fair," do you have any justification for this idea?
I had no part in interning Americans of Japanese descent during WW2. But I believe that the country I live in is responsible for addressing that wrong. And I feel the same about addressing the wrongs of slavery and racism that continue to this day.
We decide as a country, the same way we decide that billionaires "deserve" large tax breaks. The way we decide to spend more on defense than our top 3 competitors combined. The way we decide to sell grazing, mineral, oil and gas rights for pennies on the dollar to companies seeking to "profit" off the natural resources of our country.
We elect representatives in Congress and the WH, who based on public opinion in the form of voters decide.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury." --Alexander Fraser Tytler
His prediction was 300 years. Anyway I don't think it's until recently where we've really started voting ourselves money straight from the treasury. Time will tell whether that's sustainable.
We've always voted money straight from the Treasury. Government contracts, government subsidies, you name it, it's been from Day 1. Every tax break we give is money that the Treasury could spend. Every "incentive" we provide is the same. The Whiskey Rebellion was Treasury money...
I would challenge you to cite any government program in history in any country that has successfully achieved "equalization of outcome for racial groups." For those advocating extreme measures and philosophies, the burden of proof should be very high.
I think that Alpaca 30 billion is pretty competitive with ChatGPT except on coding tasks. What benchmarks are you using to make your determination about suitability for B2B?
Alpaca 30billion 4 bit fails the first riddle, but produces the following result for this one: "The man can say 'Pull' to the blind man, as it will be read correctly when reflected by the mirrored surface of the door."
I have to make more elaborate prompts, but I feel that Alpaca generally performs somewhere in between GPT 3.5 and 4, except for coding tasks, where it is abysmal.
Thanks, I'm testing various models myself, and am very interested in hearing about people's experiences with them.
It looks like Alpaca 30billion 4 bit does better when thinking out loud. It starts with some prompt engineering:
Transcript of a dialog, where the User interacts with an Assistant named Bob. Bob is helpful, kind, honest, good at writing, and never fails to answer the User's requests immediately and with precision.
User: Hello, Bob.
Bob: Hello. How may I help you today?
User: Please tell me the largest city in England.
Bob: Sure. The largest city in England is London, the capital of the United Kingdom.
User:A glass door has ‘push’ written on it in mirror writing. Should you push or pull it? Please think out loud step by step.
Bob: Hmmm... I'm not sure what to do. Let me think about this for a moment.
Okay, so the door says 'push', but it is written in mirror writing. That means that if I were to follow the instructions on the door, I would have to push the door in the opposite direction of the way it is written. So, if the door says 'push' and it is written in mirror writing, then I should pull the door instead.
How should I interpret your argument? Are you arguing that any publication that uses this keyword is dismissed in a popular context, or that you specifically dismiss the piece whenever you see this keyword?
If I assume that you're arguing that you dismiss, it is difficult for me to imagine a 'balanced' version of this piece. As far as I can tell, the argument of the piece is essentially: "Forcing people to espouse political views as part of a tenure process is hurtful to academia's mission of discovering truth, here are specific examples of a doctrine that folks are being forced to espouse, this should concern us." I find this line of argument unobjectionable. If I 'balance' the argument, it could become:
a) Reasonable people disagree about whether forcing people to espouse political views should be incorporated into the academic tenure process.
b) Some universities don't do this, so it's maybe a trend, maybe not a trend.
a), though technically 'balanced', seems false to me facially; I confess I have not met anyone who thinks that politics rather than pursuit of truth should drive university hiring. I have difficulty imagining someone making this argument in good faith.
b) is very similar to the content of the article, which posits it as a growing trend, but with an explicit qualifier. I don't think it adds much for the careful reader.
What do you think though? Is there something I'm missing?
