daltotron @ daltotron @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

528

Joined

2 yr. ago

They already do that, it's just invisible to the naked eye, and is only identifiable to other AIs, which can pretty easily classify between real and fake. Adversarial networks.

The distinction between what's real and what's fake, as always, will just end up coming down to who has the most resources, and who has the luxury of constructing their own reality. It's an arms race, both algorithms need active maintenance in order to supercede each other.

If you even use the software you are supporting them.

How?

But of course, if we know the clock loses a minute a day, you could derive the current time based on how long ago the clock was set to the correct time, or you could just throw it forward one minute at the end of every day and reset it that way with no reference. The broken clock is just completely useless as a timepiece, though. I think lewis carol was wrong.

damn, you already said the thing I said but better

Like he thought the “elements” were earth, wind, fire, and water and that all objects want to be in their “natural” place. So, if you drop a rock, it tries to return to the earth. Fire goes up because it’s trying to get to where it “wants” to live.

That's basically correct, though, as long as you're intepreting "elements" to mean something more in linenwith "states of matter", rather than actual fundamental periodic style elements.

It's just sort of kind of like a slightly more advanced form of spam, or trolling, or really fucked up propaganda/news. The integrity of the ideas and the evidence itself is more what should be evaluated in an argument anyways, rather than the source, and I don't think like, evidence, generally, like, evidence in general, proof of things in general, is going anywhere anytime soon. I don't think AI is advanced enough to break encrypted p2p communication, so I don't really think there's much of a chance that shit just gets totally wiped off the internet and you start seeing like mass memory hole type shit. It's more likely that you end up seeing mass disinformation campaigns. You know, like what we've had since forever, where you get the population to do it to themselves.

Legitimately I do think being kind of, orientation agnostic, seems like a decent idea. I've seen it done well before in things like webtoons, where the sort of "line of action", as it were, can benefit from bouncing from one side of the screen to the other, and where a variety of composition techniques can make a shot look more interesting and be properly readable in either viewing orientation. I think a conflict kind of naturally comes about when you're just wanting to shoot everything to be completely in line with the floor so it's easily parsed by the viewer, which is understandable, but kind of limits how interesting and efficient you can make your shots.

Also, somebody needs to make some popsockets that actually work, so holding your phone horizontally for more than five minutes doesn't suck garbage doo doo.

We are now to use 1x√2 as the optimal aspect ratio, as to allow screens to be put side by side, and then turned into larger screens.

really omega level convincing stuff, there.

Pretty much anyone who claims they get to rule over me and not provide people with a service.

The problem is that these two things aren't, you know, unrelated. You say, the health insurance people, right, and I would generally agree they can go fuck themselves, but I think if we kill a bunch of them, the power vacuum will probably just fill itself with the exact same shit, while people slowly get radicalized and possibly become nationalistic because everyone's getting killed by a foreign government, you know, especially as the government that's getting bombed to shit starts cutting propaganda about it. You need to actively be providing an alternative that people will flock to, when you go and kill these people, otherwise, you'll just be eliminating infrastructure in the form of people, and you'll be turning everything into a dark age political radicalization hellzone.

More than that, drones are bad at constructing infrastructure, but they're really good at destroying it. If you're tearing through a housing complex to kill a terrorist, you're going to make a lot more disillusioned people out of those who are now homeless. It's really epic how people don't understand this, and don't understand how people might not look kindly to a military occupation generally, especially one that isn't helping much to build out their infrastructure, or, maybe more importantly, position them in a way where they're actually well off in the global market, since that's something they have to worry about now in a neoliberal, globalized society. And then instead everyone's just like, yeah, well, they don't want our help, but they're still a threat, let's kill everyone, and then we can save the little girls that are never going into the classroom again after they're fucking dead.

I hate this place, bro.

Ahh, the taliban, or the brave mujahideen fighters, of course, are being religious fanatics again! Who could've guessed! I'm sure when I look into this comment section, I'm going to see lots of people doing historical and contextual analysis, and maybe even some religious analysis, as to why this is the case! I'm sure I won't see bigotry directed at muslims in general for being the victims of politically conservative radicalizing oil wars! I'm sure everyone will have a totally rational opinion on this!

My phone doesn't have a headphone jack. Despite this, I used a pair of shitty wired IEMs every day when I walk my dog. I don't really think bluetooth is all that bad, it works for me most of the time, except on my oldass car which I bought one of those bluetooth to radio short throw transmitters that plugs in the ciggy lighter and it gets really staticky when it rains, but my car's speaker system wasn't doing wonders anyways so I don't think it matters that much.

No, I don't have a problem with bluetooth, but I still think it's probably worse for most every application I could think of, compared to an aux jack. The amount of time I save by having my phone automatically connect to my car compared to plugging in my phone is basically nothing. Takes about 3 seconds for my phone to connect, takes about 3 seconds for my phone to get plugged in. Same with regular headphones. About the only thing I can maybe think of is a wireless speaker, but I tend not to use those very often and you could probably do that over wifi in most applications. That, and the cost of bluetooth is just always gonna be higher than an aux jack, or a wire. Shut up about DACs, too, I don't care. A cost of like 4 bucks for a usb-c to aux cable is going to perform about the same as your pretentious 500 dollar usb-c to usb to usb powered DAC to aux port chain you have going on because of "noise". That's insane. It's insane to carry that shit around in your pocket all day.

Headphones, you're paying more for worse quality, basically every time, and this will hold true for every device. Plus there's always the fuggin batteries and the little stupid case, and I'm not paying more for a new pair of shittier headphones when in 3 years my bluetooth headphones can't hold a charge because the manufacturer didn't program anything for a trickle charge to preserve battery life.

I dunno, this makes me mad, phones not being 16:9 makes me mad, phones not fitting in my dainty little hands makes me mad.

You know I think the way you eliminate that is less by relying on the frequency of use, and more by relying on the merits of the argument being had itself. A good part of this is gonna be calculated on whether or not the tradeoff of having an aux jack is worth it. For the consumer, this is needlessly stupid and there are like no phones now that have one, you have a limited selection and that sucks, but in terms of the actual core technology I really can't see why you wouldn't have one. The idea that it wastes the 2cm³ of space is kind of a poor argument, imo, when we've been switching from palm sized phones with bezels and home buttons, to phones that now stick out of my sweatpants pockets and have hole punch cameras and like four cameras on the back and somehow have less features. None of the market makes a lick of sense, right now, it all seems like manufactured demand and monopoly to me.

See it's pretty easy to square the "I'm a lamp" circle, though. What do you mean by "I'm a lamp"? You could mean basically anything, even things you don't mean it to mean, I could just come up with random shit it could mean and I'd be no less wrong. In a vacuum, much like identifying as a christian, it's a pretty meaningless claim, the only commonality of the claim as it exists is that you decided to use that specific word. You know, much like a christian.

Are you a lamp cos you get turned on when I twist your switch?

You have a selection bias going on, there. You will tend to notice the "whiny ones" more often, because they are whiny. This is the same reason as to why, to you, it's not obvious that it's not a religion.

You're also going line by line on the comment which I should tell you is omega cringe and completely misses the main thesis of the comment in exchange for being kind of smarmy and quippy, which I would say is very unchristlike. Their point is that self-identifying as christian is a positive group, it's a group you choose to identify as. Being an atheist is something you are because you don't identify as belonging to any religion, it's a negative group. Atheists are the non-black non-ravens, they constitute literally everything that isn't. Which one do you think would be the more coherent, singular group, there? It's like if you had a classification of all chairs being, things with four legs that you sit on. Atheists, in this metaphor, would be everything that isn't a chair. Even with that shitty definition of a chair, that includes horses, chairs will still be a more coherent and singular group, than "everything that isn't a chair". That's their point.

Or is it just that they’re bad at following the rules of their religion?

The problem is that this basically can't be the case, because all the rules are made up pretty much ad hoc and everyone can just justify whatever interpretation cause the holy spirit told them that was the right way, and they're more in touch with god than you, yadda yadda.

Definitions of who is and isn't a shitty person is also kind of up in the air. This guy definitely is, but the christian who's been brainwashed into believing that gay people are sinners as a matter of the rules of the universe by their god? I dunno. Plot twist, though, this guy and the brainwashed guy are the same guy. YMMV depending on whether or not you believe it's intent, or action, that specifically causes harm, though, cause lots of people can walk around thinking that and never attain positions of power like what this guy has, even if they might end up performing the same given the role.

I'm not given to thinking that all of christianity is bad or whatever, that would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. But I've been raised in the religion, I've seen a lot of it, and there's a much, much higher proportion of what people would call "fake" christians, in proportion to the ones that are nice and accepting and whatever. I dunno if they're fake, at that point, just by sheer numbers, just by the fact that that's what exists in the common consciousness as a "christian" way more than some nice dude.

I don't think the relative amount of people that would do that would be high enough to really end up mattering, and it's not like, in that circumstance, advertisers can tell whether or not people are actually watching their ads anyways, which has always been the most dubious part of ads. And, is the biggest advantage of the internet and youtube, is that you can tell, you're allowed access to those metrics. I don't see a reality where youtube just goes to basically like, shittier cable advertising, forcing everyone to watch all the ads all the time, and that becomes somehow attractive to advertisers. I think, if that were the case, advertisers would probably pull out just on that basis and go where they know exactly what content they're putting their ads in front of, which has always been the disadvantage of youtube.

which can be largely solved with laser ignition

hoo lee I've never even thought about that, that sounds sick as hell

That wasn't really my point, I was just saying one man's funny is another man's transphobic, and that you can make money and be successful by being funny to like. I dunno, 5% of the population, rather than "most people".