Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)DR
Posts
0
Comments
334
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Look, I think YouTube is one of the few major "social media" sites that net positive for social good. And it loses Google money every year with saving everyone's videos forever and hosting 4k and even 8k content...

    But you can't withhold the carrot and use the stick. They're eroding trust with the people that have liked and supported YouTube throughout the years. There are plenty of people like me, that would gladly pay some amount of money. Just not THAT amount of money. Create some payment tiers and decent benefits for climbing up it.

  • Love a good shit post, lol. And it actually gets me thinking how something like 70% the world's wealth is held in the top 10% 🍽️ 🤤

    Of course you need to make a monumental amount of money compared to the rest of the world, so we're willing to make that sacrifice! Just 10% of people in the world! 😂 I think it's $32k USD a year salary to be in the global top 10% of earners. And oh... $60k USD to be in the top 1%

    So I'm kinda curious, OP, you on the menu?

    Note this calculator is from 2019, so "deflate" accordingly

  • Agreed. And I don't see our current economic structure standing up to this. I think we'll need a system that gives people value that isn't "What can you produce / what do you own?" The transition period will be brutal and we have to be careful how the elite use their influence during the restructuring. But if we're motivated enough we could end up with a much better balance of power.

  • Thanks for this comment. I totally get how it can feel like 'free speech defenders' have a blanket defense that ends up protecting evil people. And you're right.

    The world has become so loud with instant global communication. So many different ideas, cultures, personalities, perspectives... I think we all wish we could turn down the volume, but none more so than for people that spew hate.

    No group deserves to receive threats of violence, harassment, or belittling of their existence. While I think we sit in agreement that it should be an obvious choice to ban people like Nazis and stop there, you could easily apply my previous sentence to many groups of people. There are some left-leaning communities where you'll see people wishing Trump to be strung up, or saying MAGA supporters should use their second amendment right and kill themselves. Many members of those communities would never condone violence against the former president or his supporters, but whoever we give the power to make the 'free speech' decision may see it differently.

    The whole concept of free speech is not that everybody has a good idea. It's that nobody can be trusted to decide what is a good idea. If you believe in free speech, you believe in hearing a lot of bad ideas that can make people very uncomfortable. While I do agree that there can be very minimal exceptions to this in extreme circumstances, (death threats, stalking, harassment) we need to be very careful about who makes the call.

    This is asking we put the responsibility of that arbitration in the hands of Spectrum and AT&T. Take a minute and think about that.

  • To this day whenever I hear people say Apple invented the smart phone I sigh. Maybe that's technically true or not depending on how you want to count it. But what irks me is how people think it was brilliant. Like bro, I was browsing on the go with my Zune and PSP years before the iPhone came out. The only things we can thank Apple for are the two worst parts of a smart phone. Apps and the phone.

  • Agreed! But we also owe redress to Native Americans, by some extension the Hispanic population, east Asians were thrown in internment camps, not to mention non-racial groups like LGBTQ. My point is once there's a precedent for this kind of thing, people are going to see their name written on it. At first it will be in good faith, but once it's broad enough people can take advantage. What politician is going to tell transgender people, "Yeah you're disenfranchised... But you're not Disenfranchised." Because of course they do deserve redress. But where's the line?

  • This is a great question. Another: How do you keep any race from claiming they can be racist because they're disenfranchised? I'm sure white Americans would be waving their Irish heritage around like, "Only 10% of CEOs are over 60% Irish!! We got to stick together"

  • I keep rereading this comment and as someone in R&D... I'm so astonished that people think that companies just spontaneously come up with everything they produce without looking around. Companies start off almost every venture by analyzing any work in the field that's been done and reverse engineering it. It's how basically anyone you've heard of works. It goes double for art. Inspiration is key for art. Composers will break down the sheet music of great compositions, graphic designers will have walls full of competitors designs, cinematographers will study movies frame by frame.

  • I think it's a pretty important question whether we're reaching the end of the distinction between human and machine. People will begin to use machine minds more and more as part of their work. Tying strings now to the works of machines is screwing the creators of tomorrow. The line between what a person creates and what a machine creates WILL evaporate. It's not a matter of if, but when.

    Imagine we put a ton of regulations on people who use power tools to do carpentry. I'm sure the carpenters around the time power tools were created figured "That's not true craftsmanship. They shouldn't be able to make a living off that!" But the carpenters of today would be screwed by these regulations because of course they have to use the latest technology to stay competitive.

    As for the argument that we're taking the food out of creative's mouths: I don't think anyone is not buying Stephen King novels now because they can just ask for a Stephen King style novel from ChatGPT. You can pirate Stephen King already. People aren't fascinated by LLMs because of how well they plagiarize. They're fascinated by them because they're capable of transformative works, not unlike humans. Nobody is typing "Write a Stephen King Novel" they're typing, "Harold and Kumar go to White Castle but it's Snoop Dogg and Betty White in the style of Stephen King." As much as I'm sure King would love to suck up all royalties for these stories, there's no universe where it makes sense that he should. You don't own what you inspire.