Why an AI slop image when any number of readily available meme images would work?

Funny how stuff like this only applies when it’s against the western narrative

This stuff applies always. It’s called critical thinking skills and it absolutely applies when someone is speaking “for the western narrative” too

The western brain pan cannot comprehend a genuinely popular government

Clearly you can’t comprehend elementary statistics like the central limit theorem lol

And honestly god damn you tankies give communists and socialists such a bad name with all your braindead bullshit. Nothing talks me out of trusting china more than talking with you idiots

Look I know it’s easy to think that there’s a singular big bad out there. That there’s just this one entity called “the west” and you’ll be able to fight and conquer it. It’s easier to believe things are black and white, that certain countries are innately good and others innately bad at all times. But that’s not reality.

If you give into those kinds of delusions you’re not really better than the people who blindly believe in Trump or God etc. It’s easy believe that kind of blind faith because it’s less scary than admitting you might be wrong. We are driven to cling to the idea that there are hero’s out there, a righteous nation behind us fighting for good, someone we can always depend on, but if you don’t see reality as it is, you’re setting yourself up for more pain. Those feelings are opium not a cure, and often they hurt you and your causes too

If you’re delusional people won’t believe what you say even if it’s true. So if you constantly go around attacking people with ad hominem, or claiming literally everything is western propaganda without actually providing evidence, you’re really just hurting the causes you’re trying to support

Anyway dude, even if you didn’t actually engage my argument you did point me to a fascinating rabbit hole to go down, so thanks for that, but I think I’m going to disengage now

I hope your days go well, and I wish you peace and happiness mate

Nice straw man. First, ethos is bullshit man, don’t idolize people or institutions to the point you think they’re infallible.

Second, you aren’t making the same claim as the source. And I’m not contradicting it (Harvard’s research). The source rightfully states that their survey found high satisfaction in government, higher than in most other countries. The original paper is on how those reports seem to be increasingly positive overtime and show that development of rural areas correlates with increased reports of happiness in that survey.

The researchers question the validity of their results because they are abnormally high and list possible other factors influencing the data. One of the researchers states that they believe the abnormally high levels are likely due other factors like the “highly positive news proliferated throughout the country” so I’m not doubting Harvard I’m actually agreeing with it

Lastly, my concern over data collection doesn’t actually apply to Harvard. I’m reasonably certain that Harvard did the best with the data they were given. And the Ash Center used that data to create their little positive promotional brief well too.

The research done by Harvard seems sound, as are my concerns about the validity of the collected data and my statement that this kind of data cannot be used to draw conclusions on the actual state of democracy or the actual workings of the government.

Fuck it maybe I’ll just send the researchers an email about it tomorrow and see if they respond. I’ve gotten responses from physicists and mathematicians before, might be fun

To be fair I doubt that would change your mind since you seem dead set on ignoring my actual argument. If they agree with me you’ll just say they’re producing propaganda for the western elites haha. But hey chances are the researcher will actually engage me in real discussion which would be nice

The study in that link is the same one from the last in the report they have the “implemented by a reputable domestic Chinese polling firm” line.

The brief neither mentions the name of the polling organization nor does it list or link to the actual questions asked. Honestly seems odd given that it’s Harvard, then again isn’t meant to be a rigorous academic paper and I doubt the Chinese government would be up for letting more research be done if they had found negative associations.

Still odd that they won’t name the firm anywhere. Like “The work began in 2003, and together with a leading private research and polling company in China, the team developed a series of questionnaires for in-person interviews.” what leading polling company? Wouldn’t they want their name attached to this? Also an in person questionnaire seems both much more qualitative and much less private than I would have expected. If you want to get people’s true anonymous opinions without any coercive bias, having them physically go somewhere and have to answer questions to an actual person is definitely not the best approach.

The only thing the questionnaire does, assuming it is built well, is show that when asked those questions people in different countries answered differently.

Did the Chinese populations sampled by the study respond more positively to those four questions more than the samples of other nations? Yes.

Can you assert that this is proof that china is more democratic and less authoritarian than those countries? NO.

At best, this study shows that public opinion of the government in china is higher than that of the other countries. Which definitely doesn’t mean all that much at all, for example I could ask half my family members and they’d say that things are better now under trump than they’ve ever been before. Is that the case? Absolutely not. Does that change their minds? No.

Now, the original article you linked seems much more soft science but the article it first mentions actually has more concrete data but still that data is on public opinion.

Unfortunately the democracy index site appears to be missing and “for sale”

If you could find me the actual questionnaire in mandarin so we could read it as it was presented and compare with the English version we could rule out some of the bias I presented earlier, but not all.

Lastly, kairos buddy, your argument was that a country (which many of the people you’re trying to persuade think is George Orwell big brother level controlling) isn’t authoritarian. Using polled data, especially that which was “implemented by a reputable domestic Chinese polling firm” is not going to hold much evidentiary worth to your target audience.

I’m not Anti-China, in fact I was and possibly still am thinking about taking a semester or internship out there; I only wanted to point out that you aren’t actually backing your argument up with any solid evidence especially with regards to your target audience.

I really am curious about the test though, especially since the democracy index paper is on a dead site, so if you could find it in Mandarin I’d be interested. If you could find a source on what “reputable polling firm” Harvard used I’d be interested in that too since the report didn’t actually mention the name…?

Oh and one last thing is that the article mentions “Furthermore, China outperforms the US and most European countries on these indicators – in fact, it has some of the strongest results in the world.” Fun statistical fact: outliers are a sign your sampling methodology is flawed, especially when the outliers are a set of samples and not just a singular data point.

From just the “my government serves the people” bars alone, it would appear the Chinese dataset is well beyond 1.5 standard deviations if the other three are so much lower and show such low variation. If this was a single data point, one would throw it out, but considering it is supposedly a longitudinal collection of samples it implies that there is a very strong influencing factor that is only largely affecting the Chinese survey takers.

If the pattern holds for many other metrics, then it implies this singular factor (or other factors) have significantly biased the Chinese samples. This doesn’t necessarily mean that factor is government intervention or bias from being raised in rhetoric from an authoritarian state, but it is statistically unlikely that this factor is simply due to china just somehow having a better democracy than every single country on earth (including all of its allies and enemies alike) by a statistically gigantic margin.

Why would that have any effect on the point of my argument?

My point is about the ineffectiveness and unscientific nature of this kind of questionnaire.

Doesn’t matter what topics or debates these are used in or who is right in those debates; the point is that these kind of charts are useless regardless of their content.

Sidenote: if you had “various metrics” why’d you post the least scientific one? Like bro, brain-dead “libertarians” could probably pull out some statistic or study that is more sound than this chart to support their idiotic bullshit. If a fellow anarchist tried to use a metric like this I’d call them out too even if I agreed with their point

Meta argument: charts like this are basically useless.

I was raised in a very religious town. If you asked, the people in that town would say “my religion is a religion of love” “people should be as free as possible because it’s an extension of personal agency” and all the while they beat their kids and would rather die than let gay or trans people be themselves.

They can quote the scriptures and could likely write some pretty strong rhetoric implying they are loving and kind and caring, but it wouldn’t be anywhere near the truth.

Point is that just because you get phrases pounded into your head doesn’t mean you truly believe them or even know what they imply.

If your country’s rhetoric specifically states that the government serves the people and says it over and over, regardless of the truth of that statement, people will have a tendency to select it. (Like if your government called itself the people’s republic…)

If you asked Americans and Chinese if they think personal freedom is important, you’d likely get the reverse pattern in your graph. Is this because America has more freedom? No, more likely it’s because the historical rhetoric we get exposed to emphasizes “freedom” whereas China’s revolutionary rhetoric was centered around “democracy”

If you asked Americans if they support socialism, you’d get lower bars than if you asked it indirectly. Just using the word socialism skews your metric.

People will say they support or don’t support concepts they don’t understand, or that they view in a different light than others. Does democracy mean more than two political parties? Does democracy mean no capitalism? Does democracy require freedom to spread information freely? Etc.

So once again these metrics are useless because I’d imagine most of these countries’ voters would disagree on what the statements even mean.

Fake: girl is interested in anon

Gay: dude likes “eating meat” lol

If you ask Walter Freeman he’d tell you to go through the eye

I don’t think the second bucket would be all that useful.

If the blade is cutting down into the wood like it’s supposed to, most likely the blood would go down into the primary bucket or go all the way around and start turn the walls and ceiling of the garage into a Jackson Pollock painting.

I’m an engineer with a CS minor and ADHD; this kind of research is what I do with my freetime lol.

To be fair this is kind of a shared hobby project/topic between me and my friend (who is a biophysics major now in med school).

Anyway, point is that you don’t need to have a real “purpose” in order to be curious. I work in a robotics/medical lab at my university and my friends is trying to be a surgeon, yet we’re constantly in debates about astro and quantum physics to the point we’ve gotten career physicists to weigh in on our arguments.

No relevance to our majors or our work, but super fucking interesting and full of gaps where there are more theories than facts. Plenty of room for new perspectives.

Normalize doing research for fun!

SNNs more closely resemble the function of biological neurons and are perfect for temporally changing inputs. I decided to teach myself rust at the same time I learned about these so I built one from scratch trying to mimic the results of this paper (or rather a follow up paper in which they change the inhibition pattern leading to behavior similar to a self organizing map; I can’t find the link to said paper right now…).

After building that net I had some ideas about how to improve symbol recognition. This lead me down a massive rabbit hole about how vision is processed in the brain and eventually spiraled out to the function and structure of the hippocampus and now back to the neocortex where I’m currently focusing now on mimicking the behavior and structure of cortical minicolumns.

The main benefit of SNNs over ANNs is also a detriment: the neurons are meant to run in parallel. This means it’s blazing fast if you have neuromorphic hardware, but it’s incredibly slow and computationally intense if you try to simulate it on a typical machine with von Neumann architecture.

I actually came across this for the first time when I was doing research into the visual pathway for the purpose of trying to structure a spiking neural net more closely to human visual processing.

The Wikipedia page mentions cephalopod eyes specifically when talking about the inverted retina of vertebrates.

The vertebrate retina is inverted in the sense that the light-sensing cells are in the back of the retina, so that light has to pass through layers of neurons and capillaries before it reaches the photosensitive sections of the rods and cones.[5] The ganglion cells, whose axons form the optic nerve, are at the front of the retina; therefore, the optic nerve must cross through the retina en route to the brain. No photoreceptors are in this region, giving rise to the blind spot.[6] In contrast, in the cephalopod retina, the photoreceptors are in front, with processing neurons and capillaries behind them. Because of this, cephalopods do not have a blind spot.

The Wikipedia page goes on to explain that our inverted retinas could be the result of evolution trying to protect color receptors by limiting their light intake, as it does appear that our glial cells do facilitate concentrating light.

However, the “positive” effects of the glial cells coming before the receptors could almost certainly be implemented in a non-inverted retina. So that’s the evolutionary duct tape I was mentioning.

It would be difficult to flip the retina back around (in fact since it originates as part of the brain we’d kind of have to grow completely different eyes), so that’s not an option for evolution.

However, slight changes to the glial cells and vasculature of the eyes is definitely more possible. So those mutations happen and evolution optimizes them as best it can.

Evolution did well to optimize a poorly structured organ but it’s still a poorly structured organ.

Honestly, it was pretty hard for me to find a source which has made me a little skeptical of my own statements.

I was able to find two case studies in which patients with liver damage that caused them to have low levels of vitamin A exhibited night blindness. Both were treated for vitamin A deficiency and saw symptoms improve.

The strongest evidence of my original claim is the fact that one of the patients had otherwise healthy eyes and vision, only having extreme trouble seeing at night. After receiving treatment for vitamin A deficiency, her night vision improved. This suggests that dark adaptation is dependent on vitamin A in the blood which is regulated by the liver.

However, I’m now somewhat skeptical and curious myself considering these two studies were almost all I could find on this topic. If I have more time I’ll try digging deeper. For now though, I’ve edited my comment with links to the studies.

I was able to find two case studies showing direct links from vitamin A levels (and liver damage) to night blindness. I’ve edited my initial comment with the links to them.

Bro myopia is the least stupid part of our eye design problems. Our retinas are built entirely backwards for no other reason besides evolution making a mistake and then duct taping over it too much to fix it later.

If your retina was the right way around (like cephalopod eyes) you would have:

• No blind spots
• Higher fidelity vision even with the same number of receptors since the nerves and blood vessels wouldn’t interfere like they do now
• much lower likelihood of retinal detachment since you could attach it for real in the first place
• possibility for better brightness/darkness resolution since blood supply could be greater without affecting light passage
• possibility for better resolution because ganglion nerves can be packed more densely without affecting light passage
• The ability to regenerate cones and rods because you could, again, ACTUALLY HAVE SUPPORT CELLS WITHOUT BLOCKING LIGHT TO THE RETINA

Our eyes are built in the stupidest way possible.

Another fun fact: retinol is regenerated by your liver. Not your eyes, not some part of your brain, not some organ near your head like your thalamus which could probably get the job done if it tried, your fucking liver. Your eyes taking a while to adjust to the dark has basically nothing to do with your eyes; it’s because of the delay in adjustment by your fucking liver to produce more retinal, dump it into your vascular system and wait for it to hopefully reach your eyes. Why are we built like this?!

Edit: A few comments asked for sources on the relation between dark adaptation and liver vitamin A. So I went looking for sources. It was honestly somewhat difficult to find information, but I was able to find two different case studies showing that night blindness in patients with damaged livers. Specifically these individuals had liver damage that affected their serum Vitamin A levels. And after raising their vitamin A levels, their symptoms improved.

This study details a patient with normal day vision and no other ocular problems besides being unable to see at night.

The patient had a medical history of stage 4 non-alcoholic liver cirrhosis, which led to a malabsorption of vitamin A, as confirmed by the very low vitamin A level in the serum analysis… …Subjective improvement in symptoms, along with better performance on visual field, were noted after initiating oral vitamin A supplementation for 6 months.

This study details a patient with night blindness caused by low levels of vitamin A presumably due to Hepatitis C.

Case description: This case describes a 64-year-old female patient with symptomatic VAD, likely secondary to liver cirrhosis in the setting of Hepatitis C. The patient presented with night blindness and blurry vision. She was successfully managed with direct replacement of Vita-min A.

These studies do show that dark adaptation is dependent on vitamin A produced by the liver, but I’ll be the first to admit it’s not exactly conclusive evidence of my initial claim that the liver must respond to dark conditions increasing retinol concentration in the blood in order for rod cells to function properly in low light conditions. That is a possible explanation for these case studies but not necessarily the only one, so take my last fun fact with a grain of salt.

Aight, count me in

May I draw your attention to the humble single word “set” which has 48 definitions?

“Paul Atreides who catches hunter seekers with his bare hands, like a hero of old!”