VoterFrog @ VoterFrog @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

146

Joined

2 yr. ago

I'm guessing this is it. The setting is a 1950's culture but without the racism and sexism that were rampant at the time. Women and POC holding significant positions in the corporate world, which never would've happened in the actual 1950s. It is a fictional world, of course. People seem to forget that.

I would think it would take 4 back to back presidential election wins by the Democratic party. Maybe 3 if it included wipeouts of Republicans in Congress and at the state level. No party can survive being out of power for that long without changing and shifting towards were voters are and that leaves the Democrats room to shift left to solidify that flank.

We've already had 1. We're on the cusp of a possible second. That means we could be 4 years from a complete collapse of the Republican party, if people were actually serious about creating a real leftist movement in this country. That's because winning is how you affect change. A loss just tells politicians that they need to be more like the winner.

It does and they're kinda weird (if you're used to more like Java-style interfaces). It flips the dependency between the interface and implementor on its head. Worth looking it up, it's interesting.

C is just a work around for B and the fact that the technology has no way to identify and overcome harmful biases in its data set and model. This kind of behind the scenes prompt engineering isn't even unique to diversifying image output, either. It's a necessity to creating a product that is usable by the general consumer, at least until the technology evolves enough that it can incorporate those lessons directly into the model.

And so my point is, there's a boatload of problems that stem from the fact that this is early technology and the solutions to those problems haven't been fully developed yet. But while we are rightfully not upset that the system doesn't understand that lettuce doesn't go on the bottom of a burger, we're for some reason wildly upset that it tries to give our fantasy quasi-historical figures darker skin.

I mean "taking pictures of people who are smiling" is definitely a bias in our culture. How we collectively choose to record information is part of how we encode human biases.

I get what you're saying in specific circumstances. Sure, a dataset that is built from a single source doesn't make its biases universal. But these models were trained on a very wide range of sources. Wide enough to cover much of the data we've built a culture around.

This is the thing. There's an incredible number of inaccuracies in the picture, several of which flat out ignore the request in the prompt, and we laugh it off. But the AI makes his skin a little bit darker? Write the Washington Post! Historical accuracy! Outrage!

How's the concurrent player count doing? The number of people playing it on my friends list has declined significantly.

I was just thinking cartoon dicks lol

Designing for a huge amount of users costs money and expertise, so more money, and not even their most optimistic predictions included this many players. If they hadn't made it big, that money would've been wasted. Which games are going to go viral is just insanely hard to predict.

People are saying that the rubber band on joystick trick doesn't work, at least. So they at least are checking for changes to input events.

Too bad it was only one season long.

The joke is that the whole world could go to sleep/wake up/work at the exact same time, day or night.

DVDs (how many people even still own a player?) are not a real alternative to streaming for a number of reasons. Nor is "just watch something else on another platform." Or, at least, if your claim is that entertainment is interchangeable then you've got no real complaint about YouTube. Hell, YouTube has its own ad-free subscription. By your own logic, the ads can't be enshittificantion because you can just pay more to avoid it!

The enshittification of Netflix goes beyond just charging more. It's any decision the company makes to make the user experience worse so they can make more money. That's things like hiding your list and your recently watched shows so they can make you scroll through more recommendations. So then they can autoplay the content they stuck in your way. Recommendations that, like YouTube, are more concerned with what they want to monetize than what you actually want. And it's restricting the way you used to be able to use the service, like on multiple TVs even within the same house, to get you to wade through a bunch of payment plans.

But my point still stands. Enshittification doesn't require them to become a monopoly and start producing nothing but reality TV. It just describes the strategy shift that these companies inevitably make from making the platform better to attract more users, to making it worse to extract more money from the user base they've built up.

Eh, people have their own tastes in TV. Streaming companies buy exclusive rights to certain content and if that's where your tastes lie, you're pretty SOL. It's about as close to "lock-in" as you can get.

Your definition of enshittificantion is also far too strict. It's just the shift that companies inevitably make from trying to attract new users quickly by providing a great service, to trying to extract maximum profit by degrading the service quality and cramming in as much revenue generation as they can.

I wouldn't be perturbed at Ben & Jerry's for avoiding the state lol. I'd be perturbed at the people we elected to write those laws.

If a state passes a law saying "All ice cream must be free." don't be surprised if all ice cream producers refuse to do business in the state, leaving the people there with no ice cream. Some rules are just stupid and the legislature needs to be cognizant of the consequences. They brought it upon themselves.

You're right that they're the same size but you're mistaken when you try to assign a total value to the stack. Consider breaking each $100 bill into 100 $1 bills. The value is the same, clearly. So for each pair, you have a $1 bill and a small stack of 100 $1 bills. Now combine all singles back together in an infinite stack. Then combine all stacks of 100 into an infinite stack.

And you know what? Both infinite stacks are identical. They have the same value.

You could also just divide your infinite stack of $1 bills into 100 infinite stacks of $1 bills. And, obviously, an infinite stack of $100 bills is equivalent to 100 infinite stacks of $1 bills.

(I know this is only slightly different than what you're getting at, which is that infinitely many stacks of 100 $1 bills is equivalent to an infinite stack of $100 bills)

Like I said, call it whatever you want. It's still stupid.

Sure lol. Plenty of Republicans have blamed Antifa. But call it what you want, left wing plot, deep state plot, whatever. Whatever it is, it must be a master class in false flag operations considering it played right into everything that Trump had been broadcasting, desiring, and preparing for. They got him to play right along, vocally support the rioters, and withhold any assistance for the targets? Truly the greatest conspiracy of all time.