psivchaz @ psivchaz @reddthat.com

Posts

0

Comments

257

Joined

2 yr. ago

I think the difference is that generative AI is allowing the spammy bullshit to outpace the anti-bullshit measures faster than before. I don't think it's demonization to point out that it's a problem.

I just switched my gaming PC to Linux yesterday. Well, switch is strong, I still have Windows in case I need to go back.

It's come a long way, though. I started using Linux desktop around 2000, and it was not a fun experience. I tried again in 2019 with a System76 laptop, and it's been just fine. My home theater/gaming PC was the last holdout.

So far, it works great. Steam Link works, my games all seem to work, RetroArch is going strong. The only downside is Oculus support doesn't seem to exist at all, so I might need to keep my Windows drive a bit longer just for VR.

I feel like we always do things exactly the opposite of whatever rational would be.

"These people aren't using the land to it's full potential so we're justified in murdering them and taking the land." - About the people living half naked off the land.

"You can't just make people move, even if you compensate them and are doing it for the greater good." - About the people who drive a pickup truck to Walmart.

I know there's more nuance, it's just funny to me.

Don't worry, they'll just change and lower the requirements until they no longer have to rely on smart people.

There's certainly some of that, but I don't think it's as widespread as you think. I think the base problem is actually a breakdown in social trust.

Not everyone can be a doctor, or economist, or scientist. So we rely on experts to tell us what's up. The trust in the very idea of expertise has been eroded, in part due to legitimate fuckups by top officials, in part due to a rise in "Facebook experts" and conspiracy theories, and in part due to a concerted effort by conservatives to destroy that trust for their own gain.

Basically, these aren't people thinking "I don't care if these kids die." These are people thinking, "The medical establishment is full of liars and thieves, so these so called vaccines don't even work."

I tried it, then uninstalled pretty quickly. If I say, "Play music" then 10% of the time it would play music, and the other 90% it would tell me it can't. Same with many other assistant commands like controlling lights.

What even is the option here? When Google got rid of adding things to lists, I started my official transition away from them by moving to Proton, self hosting more stuff, etc. But for a voice assistant it seems like open source just isn't there yet, it doesn't have the hardware, and my only remaining option is to switch to Amazon (no.) Or Apple.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. One result affirms that you should feel safe and provides a hotline, the other starts with outright victim-blaming. The second result under "Maybe it's your fault for not listening?" is not a hotline, at least for me.

My point is that if they just made the result the same then it would not detract from women, nor would it hurt the men who don't need the advice. You're going out of your way to defend an unnecessary bias by claiming it's more relevant, but that's not the point. They could choose to just not have the bias, and it would be a win while hurting no one.

The true mildly infuriating is the comments. Whether this is rage bait or not, we should all be about to agree on some basic things:

• Domestic violence sucks regardless of who the victim is and who the perpetrator is.
• Helping one group of victims, like males, does not have to and should not take away from helping another group.
• The number of victims should not be the deciding factor on whether victims deserve empathy and support.

People in here are going out of their way to defend what is clearly a biased oversight, treating women like an automatic victim and treating men like an automatic perpetrator. Why? Just acknowledge that it's dumb, shows bias, and move on.

Since they're underage, the mother would have the authority to make medical decisions on their behalf. If she decides that they wouldn't want to be kept alive by machines like an industrial freezer, surely that's her choice, right?

I'm not a lawyer but I'd love to see how something like this pans out. It feels like another one of those situations where an idiot makes a sweeping ruling that doesn't consider the many many ways it affects society.

I'm more conservative than my teenage self, in that I believe now that people, as a whole, are much shittier than I suspected before. This has failed to translate into voting for conservatives because:

• Conservative politicians and voters have played a big part in that realization
• Even shitty people still should get medical care and such
• Even if you don't care from a moral perspective, it's a net good for society if people have housing and healthcare and are able to contribute, rather than being forced out into the streets to die.

I use Photoprism. It is sufficient, amazing even for what it is, but there's a definite curve to getting it set up properly and there's some babysitting involved to make sure everything keeps working.

Investing in a company is, in a real sense, providing them money. Stocks aren't pretend money totally separate from corporate finances, they are intended to provide capital for expanding a business. If it goes well, the company makes money, the value goes up, and you can sell at a profit. If it goes poorly, you can lose up to 100% of the money you spent to buy the stock. That's why it's "investing." You make it sound like a dog track where the money you put in has no actual effect on the outcome of the race, but that's not true.

Even if it were true, where is the line? If I come to you with my meth business, a proven track record, and a high potential rate of return and I just want money to help expand, you would consider that a good business? What if it's assassination? Suppose it's a totally legal banana company but also they moonlight in overthrowing democracies?

It may be that my literal dollar bill that I invest does not end up in the hands of a guerilla, but in helping dump money into the company I am helping enable the behavior. In this scenario, I think figuring out who is legally culpable and should have known is impractical and the risk is too high of innocent people ending up in jail for us to lock up shareholders, but losing the money invested is absolutely a risk you take when investing, and if people lost their money more often they'd probably pay more attention and it would be a net good.

I sort of disagree. It should be tackled from both sides. Shareholders do have some culpability for investing in unethical businessed and not doing enough due diligence. Your average person saving for retirement probably did nothing wrong, dumped the money in an ETF or IRA or 401k and the investment company handled it, but the investment company should have been looking at business practices and not solely stock performance.

Jail time for the decision makers. We already have a way to punish shareholders: Fines on the company. They should just stop being small fines and start at the very least exceeding the amount the company made through crime.

Jailing the decision makers will discourage crime to some extent. The temptation will still be there to pump numbers and make a lot of money. Hitting investors and investment firms in the wallet will encourage a culture of giving a shit about where you're putting your money.

The truly wild thing about subscription pricing to me is how viscerally I'm against it. I'm not shitting on this business model, I think it makes perfect sense and is probably the only logical way to run a business like this. I'm just saying that everything in our lives is trying so hard to turn everything into a recurring fee that my first reaction to every recurring fee is pure hatred.

Alright, so the amount of data I'd need for pictures is probably the 500GB tier, so $9.99/mo. My first thought is that's way too expensive, my second thought is that I'm not doing another subscription. My subscription-trauma addled brain will happily justify buying a little server, and a 1TB hard drive, and spending hours configuring them. By the time I'm done, I'll have spent the equivalent of at least 3 years of the cost of this service, plus tons of my free time, and it will never work exactly right because there's always going to need to be updates, and sometimes those will break something, and I'll need to fix it myself.

Anyway, it looks cool though.

This seems like an overly complicated explanation when the alternative explanation is so simple: More call center employees can answer more phones, but call center employees cost money to hire, and businesses do not like spending money.

"Clean house" feels optimistic. Standard procedure for a buy out:

• Executives are retained or let go with generous packages
• Middle management is summarily executed
• Someone sorts a spreadsheet of developers by salary and lays off the highest paid (and sometimes best, though no telling when we're talking about these two garbage fires)
• Remaining developers are shuffled. Some are asked to move to teams that are doing wildly different things than what they were doing before. Some teams are filled with lower cost "resources" from other countries.

Um literally billions of people are dying from the vaccine and you just don't know about it because the media won't cover it. Or something.

He wasn't saying it was a bad idea, but that it was a bad name. You want to get something done in a democracy, you gotta get people on board. You want people on board, you gotta sell it.

I don't quite understand. Are you saying it's immoral to sell a business? Is it retiring that's immoral? I didn't say that everyone secretly anything, I just don't understand why the hate.

Look, there's no such thing as an ethical billionaire. I get that, and fully believe it. But I don't get why people think "selling out" is a thing when it's often basically short hand for "retiring and letting someone else make the money."

TBH I don't get why people criticize selling out as if they wouldn't do it, too. I don't want to sit and amass wealth indefinitely, if I have a company and someone comes along and offers "retire rich forever" money, I'm taking it and fucking off to somewhere fun. Especially if we're talking billions, no one will ever hear my name again.