I see what you mean. However, it was at no point my intention to equate the severity of those two different contexts. But given your interpretation, I understand why you found it to be a ridiculous comparison. I just wanted to highlight that even seemingly harmless things can become a tool for harming someone regardless of the actual severity. Sorry if that wasn’t clear enough before.

Given that this protest is performed by adults and not 5 year olds, and assuming that they are not shy about their hostility towards tourists, I would argue that the severity of such an confrontation can linger for a while with someone. I am absolutely sure that this would keep my mind busy for a while if it were to happen to me or those close to me. Therefore, I would rank this higher in terms of severity than a child being silly. (Of course it would be no match with being bullied.)

my response was to demean the overdramatic use of the word “attacked”.

Maybe it’s just me, but I didn’t interpret the wording in such a dramatic manner like you did. I’ve seen it in a more general, abstract manner. Not in a way that would motivate me to call the police, no. Almost like the phrasing “verbal attack”, which is also understood rather lightly. It seems this is why we’ve got into this misunderstanding. So thank you for clarifying this. :)

How so?

It illustrates the hostility experienced by the target. It’s just water, which is by itself harmless.

But:

In the one case it is a demeaning gesture by bullies, which does imply so much more than “just water”.

In the other case it is experiencing aggression, possibly being shouted at or insulted, which also causes more than “just water”.

How would you feel?

You plan a trip to the city, with your partner and kids. And then you come accross angry people who tell you to fuck off while shooting at you and your family with water pistols.

Would you feel the same way about this as if it was just raining?

To me, and probably a lot of people, this is certainly another and far more hostile experience, which is also not a pleasant one.

In a hostile context even the most harmless of things can become weapons.

For example, do you care if the guy in school gets a bucket of water emptied above them while being ridiculed by bullies?

It’s just water at the end, so what?

The us is in many ways a much worse country than Germany (or almost any EU country). I don’t see why we should strive to emulate that model.

Besides the point. Immigration does not necessarily lead to “bad” legislation.

an AfD or nazi kid in your home

Mostly the same thing.

That would be great. Wouldn’t it? It’s nice to dream. I also had dreams when I was young.

Yes. Not just because of that.

You are literally wrong. Nice article, don’t see how that’s relevant though.

Could it be, that you don’t know what “intelligence” is? And what falls under definitions of the “artificial” part in “artificial intelligence”? Maybe you do know, but have a different stance on this. It would be good to make those definitions clear before arguing about it further.

From my point of view, the aforementioned branches, are all important parts of the field of artificial intelligence.

I totally agree with Linus Torvalds in that AIs are just overhyped autocorrects on steroids

Did he say that? I hope he didn’t mean all kinds of AI. While “overhyped autocorrect on steroids” might be a funny way to describe sequence predictors / generators like transformer models, recurrent neural networks or some reinforcement learning type AIs, it’s not so true for classificators, like the classic feed-forward network (which are part of the building blocks of transformers, btw), or convolutional neural networks, or unsupervised learning methods like clustering algorithms or principal component analysis. Then there are evolutionary algorithms and there are reasoning AIs like bayesan nets and so much much much more different kinds of ML/AI models and algorithms.

It would just show a vast lack of understanding if someone would judge an entire discipline that simply.