The article is a bit too nostalgic for my tastes, and hyping 4chan or Web 1.0 surrogates is not going to put the Internet back into users' hands.
Everybody should rather take a look at what Ari Balkan is doing with the Small Web concept over at his blog. He's also on Mastodon and generally seems like a great guy.
Well well well, if it isn't the consequences of my own actions!
Hamas has banned the digging of wells since 2021. I don't see how they would permit the harvesting of rainwater, even if there weren't Israeli legal regulations in place (which seem to be on par with many other countries' laws). That plus their systematic dismantling of working water infrastructure for rocket parts has had it's effects.
For anybody else looking for the source of this quote: https://archive.md/RyZI0
Wow I gotta stop hanging out exclusively in Rust communities. When I read the headline I was expecting much more drama.
I think AI in this case is doing exactly what it's best at: Automating unbelievably boring chores on the basis of past "experiences". In this case the boring chore was "Draw me [insert character name] just how I know him/her".
Too many people mistakenly assume generative AI is originative or imaginative. It's not. It certainly can seem that way because it can transform human ideas and words into a picture that has ideally never before existed and that notion is very powerful. But we have to accept that, until now, human creativity is unique to us, the humans. As far as I can tell, the authors were not trying to prove generative AI is unimaginative, they were showing just how blatant copyright infringement in the context of generative AI is happening. No more, no less.
Although this surely does not completely explain the situation, I also have a feeling these sorts of hires surely account for a substantial number of layoffs.
We bought a couple of plants that have a smell that allegedly repels cats and other animals and had good results planting them around our patches. But we also left the dog in the garden more often which might have helped even more. The plants are called plectranthus ornatus ... but there are others which might also work: https://horticulture.co.uk/cat-deterrent-plants/
Regarding your last sentence: Are you suggesting insincere motives behind this study?
There is an argument to be made about how studies like this underpin technology averse boomers trying to vilify modern social life. OTOH, studies like this, correctly implemented, are utterly important. It wouldn't be the first time science has proven something very popular (e.g. smoking) is actually also very harmful.
I love that this headline let's ole Bill sound like a zoned out stoner college freshman.
"This is Florida! The whole goddamn state is shaped like a gun! You can't walk to your mailbox without tripping over three of them. God forbid you sell one to a cop!"
I'm more on the side of Marx's character mask argument on people like Bill. That's why I can make shitpost comments like mine even without liking him all too much.
In Living Color. Man, the talent on that show was unbelievable: Almost the complete family Wayans, Jamie Foxx, Jim Carrey ... they all started with that show. And Jennifer Lopez was on the dance crew! Look up the skits on Youtube or Piped. The comedy I saw on that show was transformative. It's 30 years later and I'm still quoting Hans & Franz, Men on film, or Calhoun Tubbs regularly.
This is actually an incredibly poor take. Why do you think self-reported data has no scientific value?
Klick on those links with caution, especially the collection is most definitely NSFL.
Riding on the sidewalk endangers pedestrians (especially children and people with disabilities). Crossing an intersection that has cars coming from the right is also unsafer because you enter drivers' the field of view much later (than if you're on the street) and at a higher velocity (than a pedestrian). If you are riding a car please accept that in the most places in the industrialized part of the world, bicyclists have exactly the same right to use the street (according to local regulations of course).
Have you taken a look at your instance's FAQ here? Other than that, there are numerous guides to getting set up with Lemmy and how to subscribe to communities on other instances. It's slightly different than Reddit, but apart from some technical details, everything works like Reddit once you're set up.
Because of the decentralized structure, there can be communities on the same topic on different instances (with different subscribers, moderation guidelines, etc.). Use the search to find communities you're interested in and post questions e.g. on the FAQ thread of your instance. Or right here of course.
It's not like I'm a scholar on the subject or anything, but to my mind the key thing you said is "changing the system". That's the prerequisite for achieving a more just society. You can hate on the owner class all you want, simply getting rid of them will not necessarily overthrow societal power relations. New billionaires will rise, capitalism will not die along with the last rich white dude.
I would even go so far as to say that hating on the owning class kind of deflects from analyzing the contradictions and ideologies produced by capitalist societies themselves. This especially shows in certain sorts of reactionary political movements, who have no problem with capitalism as long as it feeds their nationalist ambitions instead of some globalist billionaire jet-set often described as Jewish.
My comment wasn't really aimed at humanizing him, I only wanted to poke fun at him although I can see where you're coming from.
Gird your loins, people running Friendica instances!
This is the correct answer.
This point is actually acknowledged in the study findings under "Strengths and Limitations":
A limitation is that the information we collected did not allow us to separate educational screen time from other types of screen time. Doing so may have helped us in examining the association between screen time and child development while considering both positive and negative aspects of screen time.
The original data used in the study did not allow this differentiation but these findings can be used as a starting point for further research.
Yeah try searching for "star trek socialism" on YT or wherever, you'd be surprised.
But apart from the series specifically there is at least some theorizing that space exploration is only possible after capitalism has been abolished since the energy and cooperation alone required to make it work on a meaningful scale is not possible under capitalism. We need the unleashing of productive forces that only communism can provide.
Aaaaaaand of course there are the Posadists. Google them for a good chuckle!
Miss me with that Mises shit.
I dunno man ... assume a model trained on the complete corpus of arts leading up to the Renaissance. What kind of randomness lands you at Hieronymus Bosch? Would AI be able to come up with Gonzo Journalism or modal music?
A brief glance at the history of human ingenuity in the arts really puts generative AI in perspective.
Fair point.
OMG I guess my age is getting to me LOL. Then add SNL to my list as well!
What are you talking about? This data was collected in a field study, not in a lab.
Ah ok, I thought you were insinuating kids were being excessively exposed to screens for the sake of research, which wasn't happening here. But yeah, I agree feeding your toddler 4+ hours of digital media a day is very depressing.
I do not understand the amount of uninformed objections to the presented results in a number of comments here ... you can't just discount the results of a peer-reviewed study with some generic knee-jerk interjection off the top of your head. Read the original article here. It details which covariates were considered and how they were taken into account. Income bracket, educational background, gender, .... all this shit is not new to researchers.
Don't get me wrong: JAMA Pediatrics being a reputable journal shouldn't lull you into complacency, but JFC, just because you don't agree with the findings of a study doesn't mean you have to dismiss it completely on first glance.