chicken @ chicken @lemmy.dbzer0.com

Posts

0

Comments

1,243

Joined

2 yr. ago

I feel like wild animals do a lot of stuff for fun and the survival is just a bonus.

Local stable diffusion takes more effort to get good results, I think that is the main reason.

Yeah but 95% of people will be too lazy to do that and this will probably be enough to avert most brigading that might happen. I think this is about ad-hoc harassment campaigns more than doxxing which evokes more organized and focused harassment campaigns.

Given how bad most name censoring is, I think most people doing it don't actually want to but also don't want to be accused of blatantly violating rules requiring it.

it's called milliseconds since epoch

It really depends on what you want to be private and who you don't want seeing it. If you are torrenting pirated movies a VPN is great for privacy. What are her main worries about privacy?

Well no, that assumption isn't needed, the US being negatively impacted by climate change would make this even harder to deal with (lower crop production, local displacement from coastal cities, etc). But the fact is it's not at the equator, where the problems will be the worst, where there may be growing regions that can no longer support human life, where this growing pressure has caused wars, and the direction people will be fleeing is away from the equator. In that situation will we really be in a position to address those people's problems? How many of them before things just break down? 50 million? 300? It's about viability and survival, not contempt.

Definitely needed, but we're past the point where we can expect to avoid some level of catastrophic situations.

Not much need for a wall right now, but I think an unmanageably large volume of climate refugees is something that could reasonably happen in the coming years.

This could be right and maybe I'm under a rock but I am suspicious of articles that reference dumb things people are supposedly saying without any quotes or citations

if somehow the population of pirates increases, that will lead to maybe tighter controls on piracy or a more global crackdown of piracy

Yes, I think most people accept that this is how it would likely work. And it actually is the case that many pirates do not agree with what I am saying, and see this as something to be avoided by keeping piracy niche, and would like to preserve their own access that way, and use this reasoning to argue against greater accessibility. But it's kind of like voting; any action you can take as an individual affecting the broader society is unlikely to make much difference in determining outcomes that affect you personally. It's possible to mistakenly imagine that they do, it's possible to not be thinking about it at all, and it's possible to have different ideas about what you would like to affect; for instance a person wanting to keep piracy niche might have some idea of a group identity of more technically literate and connected insiders like themselves, and want to act to protect the interests of maintaining media access for that group.

To me, this subjectivity of goals and the relative absence of direct personal consequences make these choices very unlike a game of prisoner's dilemma, in which you can expect the consequences of your choices to be unambiguous, tangible, and personally experienced. Instead of working out an optimization problem for clearly defined personal interests that are the same for all actors, the task is one of empathy and imagination - what can the world look like, what should it look like, who do we care about and what do we want for them? How do different visions of the world weigh against each other?

We definitely don’t want more people to pirate

Many of us do. Why would we seed torrents, donate to crackers and repackers, offer useful advice etc. if we did not? Personally I would prefer for everyone to stop paying money for software and media entirely, and for the industries that produce those things to collapse, and the legal structures protecting them to be dismantled, because I think we would create better stuff without financial incentives. Not everyone is operating under your idea of a rational perspective here.

That makes a lot of sense. Seems like the way taxes are set up is creating perverse incentives here.

Growth is more valuable than dividends

Shouldn't that depend on the dollar amounts? Why would $X of dividends be worse than $X of stock growth? And if growth just isn't in the cards anymore, it would be in reality a worse bet as the companies pour resources into a black hole of false hope and self sabotage seeking something that isn't actually going to happen.

you get a lot of publicly traded companies that are in the industry that have to show their investors growth—because why else does somebody own a share of someone’s stock if it’s not going to grow?

I thought the way it was supposed to work was, a company starts out investing in its growth and during this period shareholders get gains from the price of the stock going up, and then when it has maxed out just switch to shoveling the profits into dividends instead? If the industry has stopped growing, I don't see why there isn't a path to acknowledging that to investors, what am I missing?

It's frustrating because when you click on those, if you then want to vote/comment you have to figure out how to manually get to the same place from your own instance/client. Probably would be hard to fix too since it looks like the comment id or whatever is different depending on what instance you are viewing it from.

Don't worry about it, on an unrelated note here is a gift of a bulky alarm clock counting down to zero with many wires

I would play No One Has Heard Of Bombs, sounds like an interesting game

I need more context regarding the poop viking's illness

I think this is an "attention check" question