rekorse @ rekorse @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

279

Joined

1 yr. ago

Here's the fun part, you can apply whatever label you find useful. Go bananas.

Call it even I suppose.

I dont necessarily disagree with any specific point, although I want to point out a key difference in perspective.

The seat belt analogy works for you but doesn't for me, I think.

We can both agree driving is inherently dangerous, precautions need to be taken to increase safety for all even remotely likely scenarios.

Where we differ here is that, I believe you are saying that life, or at least being part of society, is inherently dangerous so we should make precautions to increase our own safety, which leads to self protection.

I dont have the same experience or perspective, to me life and society is inherently safe. Most of the crime and violence, in my opinion, is because unfortunately crime and violence actually work well when you have no other options. I'd rather focus on the reasons people have no other options.

When you said that I must live such a safe life to feel that way, I have to say that I do agreetpo an extent but most of the reason I feel this way is essentially faith based, that other people are generally good people across the board.

I haven't had an easy life myself, but instead of it leading to what I call fear (you might call practical preparation) it led me to feel safer around people.

All of that said, I'm willing to throw out all 9f this calculus when it comes to women. I have no idea what thats like, and I imagine I would have a lot more fear and would likely be arguing much like yourself. I really dont know the answer for a woman who can't feel safe no matter where she goes.

What you call manipulating words is just a different perspective, neither of us is breaking any laws, and this is absolutely about morals. Your perspective apparently is that none of thus warrants any moral consideration at all. I disagree.

Of course noones trying to stop you, we are talking about why you use something and I wont, thats it. If you only care about what benefits you personally, of course youll butt heads with people who choose to apply a different methodology for what is good or bad. What was your point in even commenting on here, just fear you'd lose your new tool?

Do people really feel as sour about Kamala as they did Hilary? Hilary made people feel slimy for voting for her to some degree, she was arrogant and callous.

Everyone I know is already voting against trump, I can't do much else than hope my faith in there being enough decent people is not misfounded.

I'm sure theres still a few more people trump could offend before the election is here though. I though his behavior during and after the assassination attempt to be awful, maybe someone else does too and they feel that much firmer in voting against him.

The country is so big though, I know my own anecdotes only go so far.

I haven't heard about this inability to get the electors to vote for a different candidate even if hr steps down though, do you have more information on that?

Yeah I assumed the person defending the OP was the OP, my bad. What's your excuse for being an asshat? Internet tough guy? You sound so big and in charge when you talk like that you know. Do you talk to strangers like that in person too? Can you share your other qualities so I can copy them? You are obviously an amazing person so please help me.

Its also 8 years old data. We've had a lot change in elections and polling and social media etc.

What if there was some sort of model that would pay an artist outright for their contributions now and into the future. Like crowdsourcing art from your favorite artists.

It might cost a lot if a lot of people want something from them of course, if demand is high. They might even work out a limited payment scheme where you pay for limited access to the art for less.

Sound a lot like we have now?

And right now, I have to disagree, most artists create with the hope they can make big money, which wouldnt exist without artists who make big money. All artists should be making more money, and even the wealthy artists now have people above them making more money than them who have nothing to do with art.

We dont need to throw out all of our ideas, we just need to keep increasing visibility into industries and advocating for the artist (or the entry level worker, or the 9-5ers, or any other of those who produce everything a company profits off of but are unfairly compensated for it).

For you to argue AI will help artists is absurd. They've been stolen from, and now the result of that theft is driving them out of work. It only is good for artists if by artists you mean yourself, and anyone else who only cares about the self. Same people who tend to use societal arguments only when it benefits them somehow, which is ironic isnt it?

Thats thr thought I immediately had and I couldn't figure out what to say, and then the meeting moved on without my reply.

If I'm being extremely generous, maybe he meant it to be inspiring? Like you can do it without a manager! You are great!

I can't figure out where he's getting his management ideas from its all over the board. Oh well most of our clients will be gone by this December, and I'll be gone by then too so its no bother for me anymore.

Edit to clarify: gone as in getting a new job, sorry if that sounded dark

Can I ask as an aside, why there is this intense fear that well trained people are going to physically attack you. Mentioning throwing sand and rocks, breaking knee caps, breaking wrists.

I can understand the vague risk of a random person near you being in some state that causes violence, but what situations are so likely that you need to prepare and train like this?

I can think of some relatively outlandish scenarios where someone might be surrounded by physically superior people who occasionally not only want to hurt you but want to kill you, but in all of those I'd have to argue the best thing would be not to be around such people in the first place.

Second best would likely be that noone in that situation has a gun. Did you run drills with your friend on trying to draw the gun while within reach of the attacker? How did those turn out compared to your knife test? What happens when the attackers kill you and take your guns. Or just steal them when you are sleeping or on vacation.

We can argue the merits of guns all day, they are ultimately tools that have the potential to be used safely, but I just haven't heard any solid arguments behind the "gun ownership increases safety" group, especially when its applied to society rather than an individual.

Creating art for yourself is a fiction. Doing nearly anything for yourself is a fiction. As much as some feel they prefer to be alone, noone lives in a bubble.

When you talk about barriers to entry for art, you really mean high quality art. Sure, perfectionists will be able to outdo their outsized expectations of themselves, briefly. The barriers to making art have been incredibly low for all of human history if you really are talking purely about the cost to begin making art. You and I can start cresting art with our hands right now. How much lower can the barriers be?

It seems to me you would find it easier to work on your perspective that prevents you from enduring the failure required to learn high quality art than to advise we steal all art globally and historically, combine it into a program using the energy of a large nation, and present it to you at your home over the internet.

But like you said, we all have our perspectives on what is important.

The comparison to cars is interesting, although cars maybe have peaked already and I doubt technology has.

I dont think proprietary information is helping much either. Makes young folk think they need to get a job at Google to work on something real and important.

I wish all this AI stuff was limited to just creating a new coding language. That I can get behind, sharing programming information is not the same as copying others art.

Maybe.

It could also cause immense frustration when people realize that all the time they spent creating AI art is essentially wasted when it comes to learning a new skill.

It could give people false expectations about the effort needed to make art. It could flood the internet with AI art to the point where it hides individual artists even more, driving down demand due to over supply.

Also, you dont need to create stunning works to motivate people to create more art, the problem is people not accepting the learning process which involves a hell of a lot of mediocrity and failure along the way. AI tools are not going to improve the average persons perspective, who likely thinks you need to be born with a gift to be an artist.

I think they mean that they were the last generation who was alive and learning about how things were built and innovated on, while newer generations won't have that benefit.

They will be exposed to high level tools instead that automate a lot of the work which will make things easier for them but reduce understanding.

Thus, the newer generations on average will need to purposefully dig back into the past to learn what the older generations learned by just being around while it was happening.

These are just general trends though, its not going to be very practical to try to apply it to any individuals, or the group of people you work with.

Y'all are fear mongers.

But what 18-24 yo thinks their life will improve under Trump? Can't imagine that group of people.

I think that group is also the least likely to answer a poll.

Could be the sleeper we need.

I'm saying I dont see how guns will help you there either unless you plan to form your own militia I suppose.

Besides this is all based on unfounded fears, which I prefer not to base my decisions on. Seat belts make sense. Most examples of gun ownership do not.

While owning a gun might make someone feel safer, it absolutely increases the danger for those living in and around the house. I'm sure some situations mitigate that problem, and we could likely license those people to have guns.

Suburban family of four does not need a rifle and handgun for each family member. Its far more likely to hurt someone in the family than to be used in a defensive manner. Besides the fact that guns are stolen ALL THE TIME and then used in violent crimes.

The way we treat guns does not respect the power they provide and the multitude of uses they have, good or bad. People also have some false belief that making guns harder to get and more expensive would only affect legal owners. When a gun on the street goes for 300$ now its far easier to buy than if that same gun was worth 1000$ or 10000$, and contrary to popular belief people with severe mental disorders are not the target customer for a street dealer selling a gun.