But that doesn’t keep him in the race, there are moron candidates with moron voters in other countries but they generally drop out pretty quickly. What keeps Trump in the race is mostly the electoral college but also the first past the post voting. Trump wouldn’t have a shot at winning if the electoral college didn’t skew the value of individual votes and first past the post effectively limits the amount of candidates you can have.
If you come from Windows Mint is an excellent starting point. People shit on it because it doesn’t have all the fancy bells and whistles you get with more latest releases, but on the flip side it’s super reliable and as a new user that reliability is worth more than all the bells and whistles.
You’ll still have the email as username which newer users don’t have.
And I’ll add the disclaimer that it might be a just too close to reality. I was expecting a comedy and I ended being just depressed because I could see the world going down that route.
Because Microsoft sucks and Google sucks and if you install Linux there’s 50% chance it’ll cure someone’s cancer. Also if you’re at a bar and your pickup line is “I use arch” it’ll be like the fucking Niagara falls. If you’re into guys even their ass will go sploosh when they hear that line.
What I’m getting at is that we’re just a superior being.
But it’s broken and unplayable because the developer/publisher renders it unplayable and that’s where the initiative comes in. The initiative wants to make it so that if the developer/publisher wants to turn off their official services they don’t render the game unplayable.
You’re stating it like it’s somehow objective, but it’s not. Battlefield 3 and 4 have been delisted and it’s a matter of time until EA turns off services and those games are left for dead. Battlefield 4 still averages above 1k players a month. It’s clear that EA won’t see value in keeping the light on and will turn off the services in the near future, but do you think the players will go overnight from “I want to play this game” to “This game is worthless”. Don’t you think the people playing BF4 wouldn’t want to continue playing after EA shuts down the services keeping the game running?
I think it’s pretty obvious that there are two groups who decide if a game has value or not, the company and the customers. Right now after purchasing the game the customers no longer have a say whether a game has value or not. Only the company has a say and if the company says it’s not worth it then the people who bought it just have to suck it up. And that’s the idea behind the initiative, to make it so that the company isn’t the only one who gets to decide how long you get to use the product you’ve purchased.
I think if we expanded the idea of bricking software beyond gaming, if companies could destroy any piece of software they made, you’d also be in favor of this initiative. Imagine if Microsoft could brick Windows 10 when they’ve officially stopped supporting it. Or Nvidia effectively bricking their older cards by stopping official driver support. Would you then also argue that the software has lost value and it’s acceptable behavior?
The Al Jazeera and Fox News comparison is why I don’t trust that site. I don’t think Al Jazeera isn’t a biased organization, but I do consider them somewhat factual. I also think I’m not the only one because you often see people linking to Al Jazeera. However when it comes to Fox News I think most people would agree that Fox news is far from accurate. It’s not exactly Newsmax, but if someone linked Fox News I think most people would definitely question the facts of the article.
And then we get to mediabiasfactcheck where Al Jazeera is considered just as factual as Fox News. It’s one of those situations where you have to question who exactly is in the wrong? Is Al Jazeera really that factually incorrect? Is Fox news more factual than people believe? Or is mediabiasfactcheck wrong? I’m not against being wrong but from my years of being on the web I’d say it’s the last option.
I usually agree with Thor but on this one I probably couldn’t disagree more. Based on what he says I’d say his mindset is completely opposite to what his initiative wants to do. He essentially said he doesn’t see any value in (live service) games after they’ve reached their end of service and from that perspective I can understand how this movement is pointless or even potentially damaging. But that assumes that the (live service) game loses value after the company stops supporting it and I just don’t think that’s the case.
A lot of games continue live despite the company ending official support for them. If anyone remembers there’s a gem called Wildstar that was shut down in 2018. Despite the game being shut down and even trademark has expiring people are still running the game on private servers. People are putting in sweat and tears to make sure a game is preserved. Imagine how much easier it would be if Carbine or NcSoft had released proper tools for it. Even Vanilla WoW exists because private server did it first and Blizzard wanted to get some of that money.
And another point that Thor made how it’s not about preservation because you can’t preserve a moment in time. I think that’s a completely disingenuous argument because it feeds into FOMO. If you join WoW today you will never experience “the golden age of WoW”. Maybe another game you might be interested in is having a golden age right now, better buy into the hype. You can’t argue against preservation like this because it’s literally impossible to preserve a moment in time except in your memory so you have be at that exact place at that exact time to really experience that thing, that is FOMO at it’s purest form. That argument against preservation is an argument in favor of FOMO.
Thors points come for a belief that live service games don’t need to be preserved after official support has ended, and he views this initiative through that lens. Of course he will have issues with the initiative because he’s opposing the idea at a fundamental level. It’s like asking a racist how to be more tolerant with other races, the answer obviously is that you shouldn’t want to tolerate other races. And just like you would ignore a racist I think you should ignore what Thor has to say on this matter because anything he says is against the idea of preservation.
But you can read the source code and get an understanding of whether it is collecting private information or not. You can theoretically also fork the code and make your own version of Lemmy where you’re ripped out the parts that collect private information. Can you do any of those things with Reddit? Absolutely not. You have no idea what exactly Reddit collects and even if you did you have no control over that collection.
What you’re doing is questioning the privacy aspect without putting in the effort to check if your questioning is valid. Nobody is preventing you from reading the source code. And if you don’t trust anyone else running the instance you can fork Lemmy, make whatever privacy changes you need and host your own instance. That goes beyond the capabilities of the average user but that’s the catch with privacy, if you can’t trust others then you have to learn more to get by without others.
That 7% might not even be people. It could be bots doing HTTP requests and throwing garbage in the user-agent.
I think the difference between the first and second is whether you have a deep understanding of how high level languages translate into hardware operations. If you’re a novice how that translation works might as well be magic.
The second panel understands how that translation exactly happens and then it absolutely makes sense.
The third one is the next step where you have an deep understanding how the underlying physical phenomen makes computers work, and again that might as well be magic because explaining it is like explaining magic.
So is Twitter but that didn’t stop Twitter from becoming wildly popular. YouTube shorts are just tweets in a video format.
I think it also depends on where you are in life. Way back when I was single, living along and with little to no responsibilities doing 40 hours wasn’t an issue. I would wake up at 6, hit the gym, do 8 hours of work, pickup takeaway, eat and then I pretty much have the rest of the day free (minus the occasional chore).
I lived close to work so daily commute time was 1 hour, gym and takeaway places were on the route. Add in 1 hour in the gym and after work, commute and gym I still had 6 hours of free time with 8 hours of sleep.
Now I do 32 hours a week and I don’t commute, but I have a family. Even with reduced workload I get 2-3 hours of personal time. ~1 hour comes from reduced workload and 1 hour comes from less sleep and the last hour comes from not hitting the gym. If I lived like I used to I’d have no free time and I’d have to make even more compromises about my time just to have some personal time. And let’s face it, working remotely means I definitely don’t spend the entire 6 or 6.5 hours on work. I have so many other responsibilities that doing less work is absolutely having an impact on my life and well-being.
I can’t fathom how people with families can do full 40 hours and find time to spend with their kids and find time to for self. I think they probably don’t find all that time. I think they’re compromising where they can and that mostly happens with themselves and their children, work is not compromised.
My point was that if you had to have someone shooting at you would you rather they shot 22lr or 223? Shooting any live round at a target you don’t actually want to injure or kill is stupid, but if you had to you’d want to use the smallest possible bullet to minimize the damage.
Clearly you haven’t been pumped up on adrenaline. It can absolutely give you the confidence to act like he did.
And don’t you think it’s a bit contradictory to not have the gusto to throw your fist in the air after being shot but being stone cold calm before getting shot? If it was planned Trump would’ve known he’s going to get shot at and like the coward he is he wouldn’t have just stared at the shooter.
Also we don’t know the cartridge of the weapon but if the weapon used 556 or 223, then it’s very unlikely it was staged because those would shred Trump if they actually hit him. If it was 9mm or 22 it would be more believable, but even then would you really risk killing the candidate just to prop up votes? He didn’t seem to be wearing a BP vest so even smaller rounds would have been life threatening.
I very much doubt it was staged or false flag or anything of the sorts. It just doesn’t make sense to me. Trump should get an Oscar if it was planned that way.
It seems like you’re agreeing with me on the reasoning why AI art is art, you just refuse to accept AI as art. So let’s try a different way. Who says art has agemcy or intent? Clearly it’s not just “everything made by humans” because if I showed you the toilet paper I used to wipe my ass we can both agree that it’s not art. Neither is the comment I’m writing right now. So there needs to be something more that separates not art and art. The two most common ways would be the intent of the artist and the perceived intent of the viewer.
If it’s what the artist intended the am artist can prompt AI until AI generates the image the artist intended. Since the artist intended the AI generated image to look that way the intent is inherited from the artist.
If it’s what the viewer perceived we can reach the original question I postulated. If an image makes you feel something and you can’t know if it’s made by the artist or by AI, how do you know it’s art or not? If we take by whether you perceive intent of not then you’re attributing intent to art and it doesn’t matter how it was made. If you feel something and after the fact you find out it was AI generated image then it doesn’t invalidate what you felt.
You can come up with whomever to validate intent or agency and I’ll show you how AI wouldn’t play a role in that decision because AI isn’t sentient. It’s a tool like a camera or a paint brush or just chalk. We give the intent by using the tools we have.
there’s something’s highly suspect about someone not understanding the difference between art made by a human being and some output spit out by a dumb pixel mixer. huge red flag imo.
Translation. I can’t argue your point so I’m going to try characters assassination.
if the original Mona Lisa were to be sold for millions of dollars, and then someone reveals that it was not the original Mona Lisa but a replica made last week by some dude… do you think the buyer would just go “eh it looks close enough”? no they would sue the fuck out of the seller and guess what, the painting would not be worth millions anymore. it’s the same painting. the value is changed. ART IS NOT A PRODUCT.
Pretty ironic to say art is not a product and then argue that its monetary value would decrease, which can happen only if you treat art as a product.
Imagine if instead of a physical painting Mona Lisa was a digital file and free on the internet, would people think Mona Lisa is less impressive as an art piece because anyone could own it? I think it’s artistic value wouldn’t decrease, only its value as a product would decrease because everyone could get it for free.
As a thought experiment let’s say an artist takes a photo of a sunset. Then the artist uses AI to generate a sunset and AI happens to generate the exact same photo. The artist then releases one of the two images with the title “this may or may not be made by AI”. Is the released image art or not?
If you say the image isn’t art, what if it’s revealed that it’s the photo the artist took? Does is magically turn into art because it’s not made by AI? If not does it mean when people “make art” it’s not art?
If you say the image is art, what if it’s revealed it’s made by AI? Does it magically stop being art or does it become less artistic after the fact? Where does value go?
The way I see it is that you’re trying to gatekeep art by arbitrarily claiming AI art isn’t real art. I think since we’re the ones assigning a meaning to art, how it is created doesn’t matter. After all if you’re the artist taking the photo isn’t the original art piece just the natural occurrence of the sun setting. Nobody created it, there is no artistic intention there, it simply exists and we consider it art.
He’s not talking about the communist manifesto, he’s talking about Das Kapital. If you don’t care to read it there are YouTube summaries such as this one . If you want to get straight into the meat of the subject you can start from chapter 4 and if you think it’s all stupid take the 5-6 minutes to listen to chapter 7 so you’d at least know where socialists are coming from when they say capitalists are stealing your money.