You said not a high budget, and yet everyone here is saying Framework even though the they are $900 to $1,000 at the low end. To me that is not budget.

Pine64 is affordable but maybe too slow to be a daily driver, unless you feel confident finding your way through ultralightweight software and the command line and can do most of your problem solving that way.

For other pre-built options, there’s Starlabs and System76 but those are similarly priced to Librem and Framework.

Beyond that I might just research Windows laptops that are agreeable to being formatted.

If by dozens you mean 50,000?

I remember in the early days people saying that Lemmy wasn’t succeeding. Very frustrating to hear because it was like the very early days. And look at it now!

A great way of re-framing it. A lot of how we tease out whatever intelligence an animal has is with some incentive. And sometimes we’re comparing apples and oranges if we’re making a comparison where one side has more of an incentive.

If the anomalous outliers of human intelligence are inventing calculus or formulating germ theory, what are the equivalently anomalous crows?

Where is Tank Man now? I bet he’s a celebrated civil rights icon who freely walks the streets, right? I did see some reporting suggesting he was executed by firing squad but that can’t be right.

Oh and I think that’s the root cause for your post: there can not be a common agreement of those positions because they are axiomatic, as in fundamental definitions.

I think if we are stuck that way, we would really be stuck. But I think we can appreciate intelligence as dynamic and not as a question that’s tied to axiomatic definitions. You see this in related fields, e.g. we don’t have a definition of consciousness, but research is about closing in on a definition, and we are able to add to our body of knowledge in meaningful ways. There’s fascinating new studies suggesting insect consciousness is plausible, for instance. Cancer is not one single thing, but there’s still cancer research, and so on. So we sometimes know based on representative instances, e.g. whatever it is, it’s like that.

It’s convenient to frame it merely as a matter of definition, because that means there’s no overarching truth, there’s just “by human standards, THIS is intelligent but by crow standards THIS is…” But unfortunately I think cross domain comparison, or clusters of related features (family resemblance) is real enough that there’s There there, more like cancer or consciousness than relative definitions.

How much of that do you think is inherent intelligence and how much is nurture?

We spend years helping and teaching our offspring the most basic of functions and how to communicate. We’ve taught other species very basic communication skills as well, like Coco the gorilla. Hell, my own dog knew how to tell me when he had to pee. And that’s nurture, but it does speak to a certain potential.

Breaking this off for a separate comment. I want to reply on two levels. First and most importantly, I think there’s probably an integral relation between the two (the capability of responding to training and socialization is an aspect of intelligence, and being able to learn is an important part of being intelligent and may very well be something we are born with).

So I wouldn’t want to tie the whole question of intelligence to the idea that we’re supposed to adjust for X amount of nature and Y amount of nurture, and then look at animals in light of those adjustments, scaling down how much we credit humans because we benefit from social knowledge. Our capability of growing our intelligence through training and socialization is a reflection of our knowledge and we get full credit for that. Crows have been around for between 17 to 30 million years(!!) enough time for the fruits of socialization and training to materialize, if the ground were fertile for it. Apes are 25 million years, possums curiously are 65 million years, bears 20 million years. Humans depending on where you start, have been here for 300,000 years, or maybe 2 million if you want to go back to homo erectus, yet we leapfrogged everybody.

So that’s the first level. But the second level is just a direct answer: humans go through a practically supernatural level of language explosion between ages 2 and 3, and start retaining new words at nearly impossible speeds, something like 20, 30 new words a day at its peak. A 3-year-old can hear a new verb in one sentence and apply it correctly in another, something that stumps even the most language-trained non-human animals. Apes in controlled conditions can take months to learn, and even then through rote repetition.

I think it’s just getting too lost in the weeds to look at a dog needing to go outside and pee, and set that side by side with linguistic capability that gave rise to human civilization like an ounce of one is equivalent to an ounce of the other. And here’s the thing: I do think it’s impressive, dogs especially are social creatures, apes learn sign language is special. And I don’t think anyone is losing sight of that when they say humans, at the end of the day, still do it better.

How much of that do you think is inherent intelligence and how much is nurture?

I want to get there, but I want to stick with my question for a second. Do you think “humans are smarter than crows” necessarily involves conflations around ability and intelligence? Because I don’t think that’s the case at all.

I think we can be respectful of these nuances about how we understand intelligence and still not treat them like they imply superior intelligence to humans.

If I say “humans are more intelligent than crows” and your impulse is to respond by emphasizing the dynamic nature of animal intelligence as if that’s not already accounted for, that’s what I mean by Crow Quicksand.

I think I would agree with this.

Don’t mistake inability with lack of intelligence.

Do you think that that’s what’s going on when someone says that humans are more intelligent than crows?

This is what’s so puzzling to me. I could spend paragraph after paragraph saying, crows have adapted to a specific niche, that they demonstrate their intelligence in unique ways. That human problem solving has benefited from a specific evolutionary history that’s involved fine motor manipulation and vocalization and social hierarchies and intergenerational sharing of knowledge. I could say things about how the development of specific forms of intelligence is in response to evolutionary pressures rather than the specific intentional choice; that the intelligence we see is intelligence as applied to specific domains. I can say that the apex of complex demonstrations of human intelligence, whether it’s via the coordination and scientific understanding and planning necessary for great feats of engineering, the depth of social and emotional sensitivity demonstrated by the greatest of human poets or social and political thinkers, etc etc are not things that should be credited to your average Joe. I can talk in romanticized wonder about the beauty of the animal world.

I can wade into that process of making caveats and appreciations and so on and still come out the other side not having lost sight of the fact that humans are indeed more intelligent than crows.

But some people wade into that same vortex of humility, and apparently become hypnotized and never recover. I almost want to call it the Crow Quicksand.

This is what I mean about that seductive vortex of intellectual humility causing us to lose sight of the big picture.

I’m not sure I agree that we have no such thing as a common understanding of intelligence nor that we should view the kind of intelligence we’re familiar with in humans as distinctly belonging to humans, such that it’s just a matter of not being able to decode or decipher other forms of intelligence.

I also think it can be pretty clear when we can see demonstrations of, say, deployed sophistication in engineering capacity, such as what people seem to think they’re observing with extreme capabilities of alien spacecrafts executing impossible right angle turns or other such things. (whether those videos are true or not). And not everything is like that surely, but clearly we can imagine what it’s like to conceive of intelligences better or worse than our own, at least with specific enough examples targeted on just illustrating that particular point, which demonstrates an important principle that these things are discernible in at least some cases.

I do think it’s very true that we have to be careful in the assumptions we make about intelligence because the way an octopus is intelligence is indeed different from the way a predator in the savannah is different and similar.

But I think it’s getting a little too lost in the sauce to think that it means we can’t understand what it would be like for there to be a demonstration of distinctly advanced intelligences, and for that matter, the very project of appreciating animal intelligence absolutely culminates in the takeaway of appreciating the special and unique intelligence of certain animals like dolphins or crows, or elephants. The very process of being careful in assessing and understanding the intelligence of other creatures sometimes absolutely does involve us selecting out ones that seem to stand above and beyond.

However much is true of the differences of intelligence to domain specificity, the cumulative forms of intelligence and the depth of it that humans are capable of demonstrating eclipses such questions.

That’s insane. And it seems perhaps like an ugly case of integration gone wrong. Are you able to Use the website and add a bookmark to the website onto your phone’s home screen or something?

That might bypass any app-based logins.

Apparently it’s feeling the Lemmy hug of death: https://archive.is/Z9Udy

It also took me a second but I got there

Commentators here seem to be missing the main point - Trump is simply responding positively to Zelensky’s offer.

I’m not sure I understand why you think that’s the ‘main’ point, it sounds like you mean this was all at Ukraine’s initiative. But I think the real story is that it has traction because, well, you need two sides to make a deal, and the game changer is Trump’s affirmative interest, which escalates this from offer to mutual interest.

The truth is out now.

What truth? Who talks like this and thinks it means something?

at this point, I think people have mined the prompt itself?

Would be interested in any additional info on this.

Nothing alleged about it. The main app wraps your prompt in a China-friendly one

I asked it about whether the takeover of Hong Kong was met with international criticism. First I saw an answer saying yes, and a few paragraphs of examples and elaborations.

A few minutes later the answer I already saw was replaced with “sorry, that’s outside of my scope.” I think with the flood of new traffic to Deepseek, they are scaling up reviews of chat content.

Realistically what is the worst thing China is doing with your private data?

Probably mapping out the extended support networks of democratic activists in Taiwan to prepare to throw them in jail after a forcible military takeover.