orclev @ orclev @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

1,384

Joined

2 yr. ago

I'm just annoyed that the term AI has been co-opted now to refer to pretty much any form of machine learning. Stuff gets called AI today that wouldn't have been considered AI even 10 years ago. I think that's part of what's driving peoples ridiculous expectations because they hear AI and they expect actual AI not a glorified smart fill.

Thanks for the correction. I guess that makes sense considering that the Y chromosome is just a mutant X chromosome, so there should exist mutations of the X chromosome that would result in male genitalia or intersex genitalia developing.

As the article points out until the genitalia develops it's impossible to accurately predict the sex of a fetus due to instances of fetuses with XY chromosomes occasionally developing as female. On the other hand it should be impossible for an XX fetus to develop as male as far as I know.

I'm assuming you're not talking about Mario Mario.

Only a very small minority will be rich enough to benefit from advanced medical care. The overwhelming majority will actually have shorter lifespans due to the gutting and subsequent collapse of the healthcare system in the US. The hospitals are going to be overrun with communicable diseases due to the influx of unvaccinated children and those who aren't receiving preventative care due to skyrocketing medical costs. That combined with the gutting of social security and Medicaid/Medicare will insure that most Boomers if they don't die in the next couple years will be bankrupt and struggling to afford basic necessities.

Boomers are the core, but they've gotten some reinforcements from Gen X and Millenials. The good news if there is any is that not enough of Gen X and Millenials are MAGAts to carry an election without the Boomers, so in another couple decades if a bunch of Gen Alpha doesn't turn real stupid we might have a chance.

The thing is, it was a close one that first time around. Prior to Pearl Harbor there was a small but strong pro-Nazi movement in the US. That's part of why the US was being moderately hands off during the start of WW2. Sure the US was shipping supplies to the UK, but in the grand scheme of things that wasn't much.

Japan really fucked up by attacking the US as there's a pretty strong argument to be made that that one action determined the outcome of WW2. There's an alternate history out there where Pearl Harbor didn't happen and the US either never took part in WW2 or else entered far too late to make a difference and the Axis powers ultimately won.

Turns out the pro-Nazi faction in the US never really went anywhere, they just got quiet for nearly a century. Lets hope we can shut them up this time again.

A politician has exactly one job, and that's to convince people to vote for them. In a perfect world they would do that by having a solid policy and a strong track record. In this less perfect world it mostly comes down to their campaign promises. When a politician loses an election, assuming no election fraud (and setting aside the real issues of gerrymandering and the problems with first past the post) that is entirely the fault of that politician. It is not the voters fault. It's the politicians job to convince the voters nobody else's.

Does... he need an excuse? Didn't he just authorize drilling in Alaska anyway? I'm kind of surprised he would even bother with excuses at this point, it's basically fait accompli now.

It's the Nazi playbook. They'll start with trans people, then they'll move to gay people, then they'll go after a different minority group. It will never be enough, there will always be another group they'll blame their problems on. There must always be an "other" group for them to direct their hate and anger at and if there isn't they manufacture one.

Declaration of a national energy emergency.

What's the scam on this one? That certainly might be true in Texas, but that's because they fucked up their power grid by privatizing it and removing (or never applying) regulations and doesn't have anything to do with the rest of the nation.

If Trump's doing it I know it's some kind of scam, but I can't figure out the angle on this one.

And even then they wouldn't lower costs for consumers, people would be paying three times more for the same product (possibly but probably not American made). There is no world in which tariffs lower costs, that's not what they're for. Tariffs are a mechanism to protect domestic products from cheaper foreign ones by making foreign products cost the same or more for consumers. People need to be shouting from the roof tops that Tariffs are a government tax on consumers until the moron MAGAts get it through their thick skulls.

See the problem is they're not trying to prevent the dystopian future, they still want that, they're just trying to figure out how to manage the inevitable disasters it causes.

Try posting a picture of Winnie the Pooh and see what that gets you.

It should be pointed out that modern LCDs use local dimming zones to only light up certain parts of the display, although that only really helps if large swaths of the image are solid black. LCDs have come a long way from the old days when they were side or backlit by CCFLs. So even LCDs might draw slightly less power for light-on-dark, although you'd probably get even more benefit by just turning down the displays brightness regardless of the color scheme.

for all of the people we’re privileged to serve

This is Corporate America slight of hand, they think the people they serve are the shareholders, not their customers. Their customers are an operating cost to them and they'll do what they can to keep that cost down so they can maximize their profits.

You're being too literal with the term copyright. Fundamentally what copyright has always been about is preventing someone else using your work for their own gain without your permission. In that respect yes, copyright is critical in the digital age. The problem is that it's a compromise. It balances the rights of someone who has "purchased" a copyrighted work with the rights of the creator.

Generally the balance that has been struck is that as a purchaser you have the right to do anything that you want with a work except to sell a duplicate of that work. You can sell the work, so long as you no longer retain a copy of it yourself. In practice this means transferring rather than copying. How exactly that's accomplished gets into the weeds a bit if you start splitting hairs, but what's important here is the spirit of the thing, nobody is going to care if technically you both have a copy for some short period of time in the middle of the transfer process.

As for "copy protection" aka DRM that is and always has been complete bullshit because it is a fundamentally intractable problem. There's exactly one way to enforce copyright and that's the legal system, anything else is doomed to failure.

We also desperately need to prevent companies from using that monopoly to prevent older works from being available by having the copyright and not publishing the work

This is solved by limiting copyright to a short duration after which the work enters the public domain. If a company wants to squander a copyright by sitting on it for the limited time they have it that's fine but they're only hurting themselves. The only reason this is an issue now is because of the ridiculous century long copyright terms we currently have. If copyright was reduced to a decade you would never see this happening anymore. That said a safeguard should also be in place to prevent copyright being used as a censorship weapon by the wealthy. I think a "use it or lose it" clause that immediately enters a work into the public domain if it's not available for some period of time (maybe a couple years) would nip any potential issues there in the bud.

Copyright isn't a stupid concept in the digital age, if anything it's more important than ever but it is grossly out of control and needs to be severely curtailed (along with all other IP law). Copyright needs to go back to what it was originally intended as, a short term monopoly on a creative work. Something like 10 to 20 years. The current 100+ year copyright durations are absolutely ridiculous and never should have been allowed.

I never liked the taste of Pepsi, but at this point I've just stopped drinking all soda.

Ah yes, crony capitalism, so hot right now. Well that and plain old embezzlement.