intent and context.
One is an actual bigot, one is an effective bigot but only by convenience.
All he is doing is ahowing that racism is ok now.
He's showing that tolerance of bigotry is currently ok as long as it's a means to a political end.
Which is different in intent and context, but as you say, not necessarily different in outcome, for some.
The difference between "benefits him politically"(starmer & johnson) vs "is a bigoted arsehole"(farage).
Ethics and morality aside.
Yes, they count, the process of making and continuing to update the underlying LLM is also what drains the lakes, they are all made on pirated info (all the big ones for sure, I've not heard of a widely available, usable model trained 100% on legally obtained data, but I suppose it could exist).
A shallow take but not entirely incorrect.
I disagree somewhat, though not entirely.
TL;DR;
It's advertising and or brand/cause awareness.
This is effective in drawing attention, good or bad attention is subjective i suppose.
It's one of those brand awareness things, but instead of a brand it's a cause.
You aren't supposed to see this type of demonstration and think to yourself "they have made an excellent point, I'm going to immediately do all i can to support this cause".
It's a background awareness thing that builds trust and/or familiarity and works in concert with other things to try and ensure that if/when you are "ready" for action in the same vein, this is the name/cause you have in the forefront of your mind.
Because it's people, there are probably many different goals and approaches.
There are definitely people doing this just for the attention, others who are working with a ted from scrubs mindset and I'm sure many others that are less than kind.
It absolutely has downsides as well, you'll piss off a lot of people by disrupting their daily life, a lot of those people have their own immediate survival shit to deal with and lofty causes aren't a thing they are going to get to any time soon.
Point is, just like any advertising, just because it doesn't feel like it's working doesn't mean it isn't.
It might put you off entirely but it's a numbers game.
Fair enough.
You realise that the fact you're even talking about it means it's doing more than just making cars idle.
Now, whether it's actually helping anything in a tangible way, that's a different conversation entirely.
Possibly , but that's not what you said.
The implication was that making cars idle was the point of blocking in the road, which is wasn't/isn't.
How does ?
A failure of sentence structure or purposeful trolling.
That's like looking at a tennis match and asking "how does wearing white win the game?".
Ignoring context to feign confusion is some weaksauce trolling.
Yes, but I don't think it's because he's angling for a social group that's into doing a bunch of hate crimes.
It's much more likely he's doing it for political reasons.
I could be very wrong however.
Not the op but I'd assume the cruelty without repercussions leading to an actual response by the oppressed that will be deemed an "uprising" resulting in a "justification" to call in the army or something on whoever they want to blame.
Probably with a massacre or two, like, a traditional bloody one.
Not the slow behind the scenes killing off of people through deprivation of services, rights, due process with some old school SS thrown in, just in case; that ones building up just fine on it's own.
Closer to Alexander than Farage.
An authoritarian bootlicking shitbag as opposed to a racist, opportunist prick.
Though I suppose there's some overlap.
Is direct trade that only issue that determines whether or not sanctions could be applied?
Surely there's general politics bulshittery in the mix ?
Citation that isn't anecdotes please, only actual study I've seen into this was a ~19% drop and even that was flimsy.