WarlordSdocy @ WarlordSdocy @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

295

Joined

2 yr. ago

If it's on steam it isn't even really review bombing. Cause for steam reviews you have to own the game. So this is people who own the game giving a warning to potentially new people who might get the game about what's going on and a recommendation to not buy it. Usually review bombing is people who have never even played the game or consumed the media reviewing it bad to bomb it for whatever reason. So this definitely isn't that and they're just trying to shift the definition of review bombing to any kind of mass negative reviews for whatever reason.

I mean at least when it comes to design it was shit in the past cause either it was being done by people who didn't know much about design or it was something new and people didn't know what would be a good design for it. Now it's shit cause making it shit in certain ways let's companies make more money.

Yeah this is exactly how I feel. Like sure I don't want China to spy on me but I don't plan to go to China so it doesn't really matter. What matters more is the USA spying on me cause I live there and that could mean actual consequences if people like Trump get in power and try to go after people that don't agree with them.

It's almost like sometimes an idea doesn't work out and you either have to abandon it or restart from the beginning but most companies won't let that happen cause they don't want to spend the time/money to do it.

I agree that the government attempting to have this kind of control in a democracy is wrong but it still does provide national security. Security is good but can be taken too far and in all honestly we've been very far past what's too far for a while with stuff like the Patriot act.

I think that's a really broad statement. Sure there are some industries where AI hurts more then it helps in terms of quality. And of course examples of companies trying to push it too far and getting burned for it like Spotify. But in many others a competent person using AI (someone who could do all the work without AI assistance, just slower) will be much more efficient and get things done much faster as they can outsource certain parts of their job to AI. That increased efficiency is then used to cut jobs and create more profit for the companies.

Yeah I'm not arguing that replacing people isnt what they want to do. They absolutely could if they would. I was just responding to the person saying they can't be replaced cause AI can't do what they do perfectly yet. My point was that at least for now it's not entirely replacing people but still displacing lots of people as AI is making people able to do more work.

I mean to an extent it is. America is mad China has a platform that's popular with Americans that they can't control. The effects of this were shown with the fact that America couldn't control the narrative over the Israel-Palestine issue after October 7th. So to increase national security and try to gain back the control they had they're getting rid of TikTok.

It's not about entirely replacing people. It's about reducing the number of people you hire in a specific role because each of those people can do more using AI. Which would still displace millions of people as companies get rid of the lowest performing of their workers to make their bottom line better.

Theoretically if Amazon drones become wide spread in the environment and I capture one, attach a flamethrower to it, and the above scenario happens after I release it back into the wild, would that defense then apply as Amazon drones are native to the environment?

Honestly this is a nice feature for some kinds of shows. Sometimes I don't want to watch a show from the beginning in order for certain kinds of shows. The only problem is this feature is coming as streaming services are fracturing and becoming less and less usable.

The problem also goes both ways though. Not only does it create fake things but it makes it much easier to discredit real things by just claiming that it's deep faked.

For me it's always the other way around, I get a fry in my onion rings.

The thing I've always noticed about getting more monitors is that you never really think you need one more monitor until you end up getting one somehow. After that you start getting used to the extra space and it feels wrong to go back to having less. When I originally had one monitor I was just used to that and didn't see anything wrong with it. Once I got two monitors I again felt good and got used to it. It was really nice to be able to watch stuff while playing games or have Unity and Visual Studio on separate screens at the same time. Eventually I got a nicer monitor and decided to go up to 3 monitors which again felt really nice and I found uses for all 3. That's where I'm at now and I don't have plans to get anymore but if I ever got a newer monitor there's a good chance I would end up giving 4 a try cause why let one of my older but still good monitors go to waste. And I imagine I would still be able to find uses for the extra space. I feel like at some point there is a limit but at least so far every time I've gained more monitor space even when I'm not sure what I would use it for I always end up using that extra space for something.

Probably companies like Comcast making sure there isn't anything to disrupt their monopolies. Another reason to break them up so they can't have that much power.

I mean yeah that's what monopolies do. They eliminate competition by either buying it out or lowering their prices/improving service to drive them out of business so they can then raise prices again. Just cause a small company can come in and make things better while they're able to be around doesn't mean we shouldn't go after these monopolies and cut them down so they can't have this power.

Yeah except with there being only 27 stores in the US that use this tech if you have 1000 people reviewing the purchases is it really a machine learning system or are you just outsourcing the process to people in another country.

Yeah I've always assumed incognito mode is just for when you don't want to have it save to your browser history or if you want to be able to log into a second account on a website.

I generally agree with you, I think the one part I disagree on is the why Republicans go along with this. Sure some of it is because of the purity testing kind of stuff but a lot of it is just because the Republicans for the longest time have paid lip service to these issues but never done anything about them. Like with abortion for example. But then you have someone like Donald Trump come in who is just like, well why don't we do all these crazy things. And that is what emboldened more people like him, with no experience in politics and no understanding that you can't actually give the base the way out there stuff without alienating the general public, to run for election and start winning in very red areas. So it's less of a pressure on the party from the outside to start following this new MAGA movement (although that does exist too) and more of an internal transformation of the party under Trump.

I don't think this is exactly right. For the longest time Republicans were the same way, dangling a carrot of doing something to get votes but never actually doing it. I think Donald Trump has emboldened a lot of people to run for office that don't understand that you don't actually give the base what they want cause it makes you deeply unpopular with everyone else.