Isn’t this whole thing a bit performative? I mean, dogs aren’t inherently more worthy of liberation from the meat market than any other farm animal.

I just dump a liter of bleach in the upper deck and remove the seat. Nothing cleans you up better than a good swirl.

I might be mistaken, but these Intel based machines might be better for switch emulation, as they share dedicated hw for the particular form of texture decompression they use. One cool potential upside

It’s really concerning how many comments are snidly dismissive or in some cases outright hostile to this particular peice of reporting.

Does Hamas deny that the hostages were kidnapped or mistreated? Are the circumstances of these particular people’s capture suspect? Are thier experiences disputed?

I see no comments even attempting to say so. It reads as wantonly jingoistic.

“our fake history” is a pretty good match to what you’re describing. It’s a relatively light hearted, rigorously researched, history podcast with a focus on misunderstood historical figures and events.

“The plastic plesiosaur podcast” is a really fun podcast more focused on cryptids and pop science.

One of the host to plastic plesiosaur has a YouTube channel called “trey the explainer” which is worth a watch.

And if you like low key, entertaining deep dives into machining or tech, check out “technology connections,” “this old Tony,” and “tech moan.”

Imo, the true fallacy of using AI for journalism or general text, lies not so much in generative AI’s fundamental unreliability, but rather it’s existence as an affordable service.

Why would I want to parse through AI generated text on times.com, when for free, I could speak to some of the most advanced AI on bing.com or openai’s chat GPT or Google bard or a meta product. These, after all, are the back ends that most journalistic or general written content websites are using to generate text.

To be clear, I ask why not cut out the middleman if they’re just serving me AI content.

I use AI products frequently, and I think they have quite a bit of value. However, when I want new accurate information on current developments, or really anything more reliable or deeper than a Wikipedia article, I turn exclusively to human sources.

The only justification a service has for serving me generated AI text, is perhaps the promise that they have a custom trained model with highly specific training data. I can imagine, for example, weather.com developing highly specific specialized AI models which tie into an in-house llm and provide me with up-to-date and accurate weather information. The question I would have in that case would be why am I reading an article rather than just being given access to the llm for a nominal fee? At some point, they are not no longer a regular website, they are a vendor for a in-house AI.

I get what you are meaning to say, that secondary sexual characteristics dictate certain trends and limits. I agree.

However, what I find interesting is that historically, the bulk of manual labor was done by the lowest class cultures. It depends on the time and place, but indentured servants, slaves, and women of the household were expected to do most of the labor. These decisions were not made on the merits of absolute physical strength, but rather by ones social status.

In fact, the strongest men. Those with the most physical apitude and power, tended to enjoy leisure at the expense of these lower classes. Including thier women.

The idea that strong men make strong countries, or do the best work, is a myth. Typically, wealth is built by poor men, women, and subjugated social classes, and the mythical status of the strong man gender stereotype serves to justify this arrangement.

So yes, the strongest biological male human will probably always outlift the strongest biological female, but the actual outcomes of who does the work is decided by gender, and historically, the labor fell on the woman. See what I mean about gender being, “bad?”

But these traits are secondary and tertiary sexual characteristics (ie they are tied to your biological sex). They are certainly the origin of gender identity, but they don’t justify it. My dissatisfaction is not with the concept of sex. It’s fair to say, “oh that person has a penis, that person is a woman, that person is intersex,” and we should strive to develop better, more diverse sexual classifies, but gender? Na.

Gender roles/ jobs, fem and masculine, the separation of media to cater towards one gender or the other, the gendering of clothes, attitudes, and opinions, and finally the gendering of sex. It’s all just caveman talk, imo

Gender is the cultural outcome of primary and secondary sexual characteristics and in no meaningfully physical way exist. In other words, we traditionally have a “boy” culture and a “girl” culture, not a gender. We are artificially indoctrinated and assimilated into a given culture based on primary or secondary sexual characteristics.

Likewise, it follows that all other gender identities are similarly a cultural phenomenon and not the outcome of some essential characteristic of the individual.

Gender cultures are, at least historically speaking, bad. They’ve generally been used to persecute people who aren’t in the dominant (boy) gender, and the conditions dictating mobility between genders is so intensly arbitrary that it warrants abolishing the whole stupid idea. Gender dysphoria is a symptom, generally, of the tyranny of these conditions.

(PS, I totally am open to being wrong about this.)

Sometimes I have a hard time telling when ADHD memes are sincere expressions of a shared experience or people putting thier friends on blast.

To take over the world? I’d take the records of every international technology and medical patent. And, a cell phone. I’d get the local news interested in my new handheld PC, find the least scrupulous tech company which reached out to me, and hatch a plan to create a trillion dollar tech empire.

This is bloody hilarious 🤣

Your situation sounds like it has some red flags. It might be worth asking Lemmy specifically for advice on that and get an outside opinion.

As for the question? My parents own a house. I’d make it a home for my few friends who can’t afford one and move on in.

I keep reading his name as David D Pepe in my head. Far too fitting.

For 3000 photos? A couple hundred bucks for a scanner and whatever you value approximately 67.5 hours of your time.

Not piracy, but if you’re in the US and get a library card, you can use the Libby app, which has tons of free audiobooks on demand. Definitely worth it, imho. You can download for offline use easily too, which makes it excellent for travel.

Piracy? I’ve been converting my epubs into html files and then using the edge browser’s excellent voice to text to read it out to me, but that’s my own special brand of insanity.

For these unplanned hours, I look to the majesty and simple wisdom of nature for my answer:

I sleep slovenly, pass gas, and growl half heartily at anyone who disturbs me. Plus, I think if great apes and big cats could read, they’d probably consume at least as much Yuri light novels as myself.

I’m gonna make a guess you’re in school?

In that context, probably she wanted to get a reaction out of you. It could be that she is a bully, but if she is someone you get along with, or a friend, she may think you’re interesting and want to see your reaction.

It sounds silly, but sometimes people pinch or poke people they like, just you see them react.

She probably wasn’t expecting you to spank her back, but she was the first to spank, so your retaliation was understandable.

If it continues and she keeps spanking you, and you don’t want her too, you should ask her to stop, and if she keeps it up, report her.

I’m not anti ai, I use it generative ai all of the time, and I actually come from a family of professional artists myself ( though I am not ). I agree that its a tool which is useful; however, I disagree that it is not destructive or harmful to artist simply because it is most effective in thier hands.

1. it concentrates the power of creativity into firms which can afford to produce and distribute ai tools. While ai models are getting smaller, there are frequently licensing issues involved (not copywrite, but simply utilizing the tools for profit) in these small models. We have no defined roadmap for the Democratization of these tools, and most signs point towards large compute requirements.

2. it enables artist to effectively steal the intellectual labor of other artist. Just because you create cool art with it doesn’t mean it’s right for you to scrape a book or portfolio to train your ai. This is purely for practical reasons. Artists today work thier ass of to make the very product ai stands to consolidate and distribute for prennies to the dollar.

you fail to recognize that possibility that I support ai but oppose its content being copywritable purely because firms would immediately utilize this to evade licensing work. Why pay top dollar for a career concept artist’s vision when you can pay a starting liberal arts grad pennies to use Adobe suit to generate images trained in said concept artists?

Yes, that liberal arts grad deserves to get paid, but they also deserve any potential whatsoever of career advancement.

Now imagine instead if new laws required that generative ai license thier inputs in order to sell for profit? Sure, small generative ai would still scrape the Internet to produce art, but it would create a whole new avenue for artist to create and license art. Advanced generative ai may need smaller datasets, and small teams of artist may be able to utilize and license boutique models.

I disagree with this reductionist argument. The article essentially states that because ai generation is the “exploration of latent space,” and photography is also fundamentally the “exploration of latent space,” that they are equivalent.

It disregards the intention of copywriting. The point isn’t to protect the sanctity or spiritual core of art. The purpose is to protect the financial viability of art as a career. It is an acknowledgment that capitalism, if unregulated, would destroy art and make it impossible to pursue.

Ai stands to replace artist in a way which digital and photography never really did. Its not a medium, it is inference. As such, if copywrite was ever good to begin with, it should oppose ai until compromises are made.