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/)OO
Posts
3
Comments
1,209
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Everyone is a bit of a hypocrite. Even you. It's important to know when someone is being hypocritical but has a point and when they're just being hypocritical. I think this is pretty clearly the former.

    He's also only a hypocrite if you believe the only possible outcomes are perfect success, and complete failure. He, by all accounts, seems to live by what he preaches. Not perfectly, but again, that only matters if the only marker for success for you is perfection, in which case no one will meet it.

  • Tech tried to tell them it was unnecessary, would take forever, and would be expensive. I'd agree with you if, for a second, the customer sounded like they wanted to drop the matter. No, this was the customer absolutely digging their heels in, and the tech did what they could to get an irate woman out of the store.

    At a certain point, you have to just let people make their mistakes, and get out of their way. This is exactly how I interpret the situation.

  • In a customer service setting, often times that's all you can do. The customer knows what they want, and particularly if there's money to be made, your employer will require you to do so. It sounds like this place wasn't exactly like that, but dude said multiple times this was unnecessary, and the customer still wanted it. He told them it'd be long and expensive. And unnecessary. They said do it. At a certain point, we have to trust that the customer really is their best advocate, and just do what they want.

  • Is it really a scam if you tell them up front the work is unnecessary, you don't want to do it, and they insist? At a certain point, it's the customer hoisting themselves by their own petards.

  • Certain ad blockers click ads for you. Assuming these clicks aren't registered as coming from a bot (a big assumption, I know), then those clicks should count as interactions on the ads.

  • Thank you. I was trying to figure out how to express my opinion on this matter, and you pretty much did. We're all allies in this, just by virtue of the fact that we were born into it. Let your fellow man do their thing, knowing they probably made the best decision possible with the information they had, and focus on systemic improvements, instead of trying to control one dude at the end of the line.

  • There's nothing to be done, nor should be done, for anything someone individually creates, for their own individual use, never to see the light of day. Anything else is about one step removed from thought policing - afterall what's the difference between a personally created, private image and the thoughts on your brain?

    The other side of that is, we have to have protection for people who this has or will be used against. Strict laws regarding posting or sharing material. Easy and fast removal of abusive material. Actual enforcement. I know we have these things in place already, but they need to be stronger and more robust. The one absolute truth with generative AI, versus Photoshop etc is that it's significantly faster and easier, thus there will likely be an uptick in this kind of material, thus the need for re-examining current laws.

  • I think the biggest thing with that is trump and Putin live public lives. They live lives scrutinized by media and the public. They bought into those lives, they chose them. Due to that, there are certain things that we push that they wouldn't necessarily be illegal if we did them to a normal, private citizen, but because your life is already public we turn a bit of a blind eye. And yes, this applies to celebrities, too.

    I don't necessarily think the above is a good thing, I think everyone should be entitled to some privacy, having the same thing done to a normal person living a private life is a MUCH more clear violation of privacy.

  • Oh it's neither odd nor tangential. The souls games (and to lesser degrees other fromsoft games) are littered with references, homages, more-or-less lifts, and themes straight from Berserk. They're absolutely love letters to berserk.

  • An interesting question. There's almost certainly someone, somewhere in the last 2000 years that has acquired some profound knowledge, only to not share it for whatever reason. I think as we progress more through the ages, the likelihood of this being some kind of breakthrough about the physical world keeps going down, if we're talking one person discoveries. As we get more complicated problems, we require more specific and expensive equipment to gather data.

    I think the realm this is most likely to appear in today's world is in the realm of mental health, psychology, consciousness, etc. Things that are, on some level, very much personal, but there's almost certainly some profound bit that can be applied to the world at large.

  • Game theory would lead you, as the tortured, to realize that they're just going to beat you until death to extract any keys you may or may not have, so the proper answer is to give them 1 and no more. You're dead anyway, may as well actually protect what you thought was worth protecting. Giving 1 key that opens a dummy vault may get the torturers to stop at you, thinking this lead is a dead one.