if you save the child people will discredit your story. it's not a story of a child dying if the child doesn't die. you can't capture what is happening if you stop it from happening.
there's much more purpose to nature documentaries.
no one would care about any of these animals or there plights without them. zoos and nature documentaries are the biggest drivers or interest and donations in the protecting the natural world.
not interfering with what is happening is more than just a nature documentary thing, it's a journalism thing in general. the only reason journalists get access to the places and things they do is because they don't interfere. interfering with the natural world is a hard thing to do right. usually the obvious answer is the wrong one when it comes to preservation and restoration. and i mean sure, there's times when it's obvious that your interference wouldn't be a bad thing, but part of the point of following a code of ethics is to remove the human element. follow the code strictly and you will never cause harm.
imagine if a bbc earth filmmaker accidentally got an endangered animal in a remote area sick because he decided to remove a fish hook. that remote area would never allow anyone to film there again.
but generally, the goal of journalists is to show things as they are. to educate the world on the problem. to do that you must show the problem playing out without intervention. and if there is no problem, if it's just an animal being hunted then you'd likely be causing harm to something else by preventing it.
a journalist believes they can do more good by showing one child dying to the entire world than by using their talents with words and cameras to somehow save a single starving child. they went there in person to do what they think will be effective in the long term. you could also go there in person to get hands on and save the animals if you want. they are no more guilty of not saving these things than you are.
the article isn't really getting into the conspiracy theories that are actually causing this.
it's more qanon style "fema is the secret police enforcement arm of the deep state coming to do their dark bidding on you the one time you're vulnerable and no one will see or believe you"
that's what they believe that makes them want to kill them. generally speaking.
haha, i suppose so. funny to think that people generally have not respect for what bit has to say because he's a fake AI written by a human. now the we have real AIs writing things like that people don't like it and want to discredit them.
what we have now just creates derivatives of existing works, but a true ai in the future would probably be built off of the foundation set by these LLMs. will that be derided in the same way? maybe some entirely new social or political issue will come into play. I doubt many people could have predicted three major political opposition to ai being artists worried about copyright and environmentalists worried about power consumption. who knows what the future will hold...
huh, I've only ever heard it not attached to "over yonder". for me it's just a modifier to distance and direction to indicate you don't account for terrain. "it's about 5 miles south as the crow flies, but that river might give you hell"
yeah no, this is just fixing the wording to better represent the truth that has always been.
this is because a California law recently passed requiring these kinds of purchases to inform consumers that they don't actually own these games. valve decided it would be easier just to do this for everyone.
this has always been true for all digital games you purchased. the fact that you didn't realize this is why the law was needed.
thanks California for being the only force fighting for consumers rights in the United States. i can see why conservatives give you so much shit. you do things that matter.
but then there's no sorting to it all and it functions on bumps like 4chan. not necessarily a better system.
the real reason is that 90% of users on any social media site only lurk. the users that post tend to post a lot. these are just natural things that work out that way due to human nature. confidence and extroversion are some of the last things to make it to niche social media.
it's basically like a forum chain, where each reply is added over the top of the last, except the chain is upside down after the top level comment. so when you quote someone theit post will be below your post, if someone then quotes that post your new text will be placed below the first quote. at the bottom of the tweet. so it stacks new quotes at the bottom with indentation. so the top is always the newest. the bottom is the second newest, then follow the chain up from there.
it's a terrible system that is unnecessarily complicated and difficult to read.
obviously a news show isn't going to feel the same rewatching it. that's not the point lol.
that would be like saying it's dumb to preserve newspapers in libraries because it's not going to feel as good rereading the "Hitler is dead" headline. people don't look at old news to have a good time.
boy was it silly of us to preserve that kind of thing and it totally never comes in handy/s
that's not even what people are upset about anyway. comedy Central mostly makes entertainment programming that isn't news based and can still be enjoyed whenever. believe it or not, comedy Central has a lot of content that will stand the test of time. especially when looking at their stand-up catalogue.
this is the destruction of a library. a digital one, but a library none the less. that's what people are mad about.
but you're right. we should just dump all of our old movies and shows. they're worthless moldy junk anyway... 🙄
and you are more reasonable than many. many others would deny that people are dying if you can't show them people that have died.