Assuming what he's saying is true, I still keep coming back to this line:
“My boss said, ‘I would have killed someone who said what you said in the meeting.’”
How does someone say something like that? And how is this something that he's never been called out for?
I've literally never heard about it until this post.
Looking at the reviews seems like a shame as the only complaints are the hardware limitations. Still won't be getting it until I finish (at least some of) my backlog.
Yeah, kinda puts paid to the idea that piracy is about sustainable, non-DRMed software for all when the one company whose niche is ensuring that such resources are available is being undermined like this.
It is actually safe, though, and all this fear-mongering based on misinformation rather than what actually has been said by not just Japan but the IAEA (and admitted by SK) is really hindering efforts at sustainable energy.
Yes, it stands for Mali, no, it's not why lemmygrad used the domain name. Do you think all the services like Grammarly and Bitly are all Libyan services as well? Because I've got news that may just blow your mind.
Please stop copy-pasting ignorance.
I think it's an anti-riddle, or a joke, more than anything else.
Yeah these posts by people who consistently get banned always have me feeling a little skeptical (no shade on OP if legit).
Guilt and mens rea can be quite compatible with your admittedly strange idea of there being no free will (and yet trying to parse laws under a framework of people having free will), unless you believe that all acts are coercive (which is quite reductive).
All you need to ask yourself is if the person wanted and intended to do that, whatever the nexus of causes led up to them wanting to do the act.
It seems very weird (and a bit lazy) to subscribe to a framework of there being no free will and yet not even trying to contextualise the safeguards of the legal system to fit that framework. Sure you may agree with putting people in jail to prevent net societal harm, but mens rea is one of the checks to ensure that they will cause societal harm to others, and without being able to settle such a question of fact you will instead never be able to put anybody, even if they need to be put behind bars, there.
I guess the difference is we expect humans to fuck up, but autonomous driving is meant to eventually be the thing that replaces that and stops us fucking up.
I think you're free to believe what makes you happy :)
But making assumptions can be dangerous in science, and misconceptions, especially in the information age, can be very hard to disabuse. I'm happy for shows to not jump to conclusions just so twenty years later we're not stuck with myths that may actually be harmful to how we understand the animals we all love.
I don't know much about how it works, but will Elon "switch it off" the same way that he prevented Starlink from being used by Ukraine in Crimea? If he has the capability to do so but does not choose to do so, that seems a red flag.
I just went to check and it looks like they were banned for asking somebody to kill themselves...? Feels like maybe they shouldn't be doing that, regardless of whether or not they were on their fifth account.
The sad thing to me is that I don't think either government genuinely cares about the 195 deaths except as political leverage on Hamas's side and 195 fewer problems in Netanyahu's way.
So you think she could be right? You just don't want to do it? That reasoning doesn't make sense. If you think she's right you should be stopping right now.
I don't think OP is guilty of this, but a lot of people think that current AI-generated content is going to sound like something that doesn't know how to be human or what humour is. That's a fundamental misunderstanding, I believe, that thinks that the LLMs that are popular now have any kind of actual sentience, and simply lack experience or understanding.
Fundamentally, they'll instead sound like exactly the most average or boring (but informed) person, except maybe a bit more repetitive, because they're trained on data and not coming up with independent thoughts. Someone who writes in a unique way and has a unique sense of humour is far less likely to be an AI than the average (yet somehow more accepted) everypost.
It is a totally different reality. The nature of social media bubbles means that you are experiencing an entirely alien experience just by dint of being here. The problems of Reddit look huge when everyone around you keeps talking about them, you subscribe to communities that hate Reddit, and it sounds like everyone is on board with the exodus from Reddit because, well, they're here.
But Reddit has ten? a hundred? times more users than the Fediverse has, even fully federated. All the people who stay are going to be people who didn't deem the problem serious enough - this means complaints about Reddit won't be upvoted, and there is a high chance that the only way that users feel affected by what Reddit has done at all are the blackouts that affected their performance. Everytime someone posts there about what is wrong with Reddit, it simply results in ten replies about how the problem can't be that big, and Reddit still enjoys the engagement.
The nature of human intuition and social media means that it's very easy to fall into the trap of believing your universe is the real one, and it's just as true for us as it is for them. In my case I've chosen not to go back to Reddit entirely and provide the one objective metric I can of my unhappiness: -1 user on their site.
There's a reason people evolved altruistic reactions and tendencies, and that's because on some level, altruism and trust in a community is good. How could anyone trust anyone else in a society where backstabbing is essentially the norm? Building giant projects like power plants could not exist without humongous inefficiencies if everyone were to constantly be trying to insure themselves from everyone else's manipulation and making sure that they have a slice of the power pie and are not beholden to anyone else. If a society of Good people are all able to trust each other beyond any doubt (because Good people are inherently trustable), they can actually do insanely long-term plans knowing that those following them will continue to meet their obligations. Resources will be split more evenly ensuring maximisation and therefore a larger force.
Your example is also incredibly simplistic because nobody wins in a nuclear scenario, and that's why Good would be opposed to it. It doesn't mean they're against other means of stopping the issue that don't contravene international laws (which, by the way, would be 100% made by Good people because Evil people would have no reason to be a party to any of these treaties).
If nuclear war happens, everyone loses.
With conventional war, it's a wash, but I'd give it to Good, with one side having harsher tactics (but also a chance of internal conflicts and opportunistic coups) while the other side has more resources but may only fight defensive wars.
With no war, Good wins - seems like a win for Good to me overall. The only problem is in real life it's much harder to separate the Good from the Evil, and most people (myself included, probably) are somewhere in between.
There are no health benefits to smoking or vaping as opposed to just not smoking. I don't know how directly this needs to be told to you, but I think right now you're too deep into addiction/denial to see it.
If you love your girlfriend, sometimes it's okay to trust them on something, especially if everyone else is also telling you the same thing, even if it's not what you want to hear.
That was the prop money. I guess if they'd known he'd steal it, they would've used fake prop money instead.
Excuse me? Who are the original people in your book and which year is the baseline?
I'm someone who doesn't have a huge stake in either side and still this take astounds me.
Singapore. And Singapore.
But the whole point of coming here is I didn't want to use the website and give them engagement.
I think part of the problem is that when everyone is pulling in different directions, the effect of people like me boycotting using Reddit entirely to try to make some kind of dent in their use statistics basically ends up doing nothing.
If you're "defending" your banner, meaning refreshing and adding inputs on a regular basis, you're providing a ton more engagement, views, and clicks, as well as getting other Reddit users more entrenched in their defense of their stupid website, than any other possible activity you could do on that site. So thanks, I guess.
The worst case scenario for r/place is a world where everyone just sits in their corner after populating it at the start. Zero stories, boring, people no longer want to engage. What you're doing? Dramatic gold.
I saw this and immediately thought about Nicky Case's game on The Evolution of Trust. I was really glad to see it was referenced in the video as the main inspiration for it!
(https://ncase.me/trust) - Link because I think everyone should try it for themselves as well.
I've let it go, and so should you.
Fell asleep in Dubai waiting at the gate for my transfer eight hours early. Woke up too late to realise the gate had changed while I was sleeping and I couldn't board in the five minutes left. I thought I'd wake up once more people were there but thanks to the gate change, it never filled up.
It's a burn and also true. If a genetic mutation becomes prevalent enough, it's no longer really considered to be a "mutation".
Also want to second Against the Storm, with the caveat that if you enjoy seeing your colony go self-sufficient, this isn't really the game. The instant your colony goes self-sufficient here, the game is basically over, and the gameplay loop consists entirely of the struggle in getting there based on a randomised set of variables.
... which makes it my favourite colony sim by a mile. I think I have over two hundred hours in it, and it's still getting improved by the active devs.
I think the criticism is that they're repeatedly publishing these and claiming they're outliers without attempting to show how they got their results, from what I'm reading.
You're not banned from looking at anything. Just go to their instance, abide by their signup rules and don't do the shit they defederated to avoid.
I think the older generation got used to the stereotype that if people were posting with emojis, they would naturally be making more immature posts (being younger). There are a lot more people from the older generation on the Fediverse.
For an example of this generational gap: you mention that "On Reddit people use emojis a lot" - that genuinely is not the experience on Reddit I had: when I still used Reddit frequently, emojis were treated with the same level of disdain (which both explains and is explained by the condescension around the Emoji Movie).
So you're signalling that you're from a certain generation and looking to appeal to people who are similarly from that generation of people who like to use emojis to express themselves. That's going to attract some people and also going to rub others the wrong way. And that's fine! Keep using your emojis. You just might want to remember that a lot of the people who hated new Reddit and a lot of the people who left Reddit for Lemmy the first time are/were going to be old-timers (by internet standards), so you might find fewer like-minded people here.
As a last note, your saying you "miss emojis" makes me feel extra old (and I don't think I'm old at all!): it suggests that the time of emojis has not only eclipsed the internet culture I'm familiar with but has died out also. That's two eras. It's fortunate that at this current point in time, it seems like digital cultural eras can pass in weeks.
I think the biggest bugbear for me is always why blame voters voting their conscience and not blame the politicians who refuse to listen to their voter base?
Against the Storm has you play the most challenging part of industry builders - starting up and getting the production lines going - but gives you a limited selection of what buildings to build and a ticking timer to keep the pressure on.
Not for people who want to sit back and watch their city flourish, but if you really enjoy the process of scrambling to set up production lines to meet the needs of your people (and I do), then I highly recommend it.
I genuinely had students believe that what ChatGPT was feeding them was fact and try to source it in a paper. I stamped out that notion as quick as I could.
Another way to look at it is if karma doesn't matter, I honestly could not care less about who reposts my posts or if I get credit for it. I hope it can just be fun to share dumb memes with the world.
instead try to engage utilizing informed rhetoric with sources to dismantle western propaganda
I think it really depends on whether you consider this line to mean engaging in good faith discussion or sealioning with alternative facts.
People don't really like to read the articles before commenting, huh.
Knowing Stardew was such a beloved game, I knew I had to get context before judging the author because it could be read both ways.
People who assume games not changing = criticism are telling us more about their own uncharitable view of others than anything else.
EDIT: That said, if I were to offer criticism, I feel like the author gives too much credit to Stardew as though it invented or pioneered the tight gameplay loop: perhaps at least some mention could have been made to Harvest Moon, the game from which Stardew borrows - and perfects - most of its major systems.
Also to be fair, it doesn't go anywhere with that thought that Stardew hasn't changed. Felt a little low-effort, like a retrospective on Stardew that just basically listed what people liked about it.
If all it takes to make science truth is to provide quotes of famous people calling it truth, then religion is probably truth a thousand times over.
A lot of the arguments and evidence you bring to the table are circular and only true from the reference point of whatever internal logic you've decided to assemble for yourself. Does this mean you're surrounded by Chinese shills? Probably not, but that is also apparently the truth you've decided to believe in, evidence be damned.
What people are trying to make you see is that epistemologically, absolute truth is a ridiculous bar that, if you set as the hurdle for science to meet, is only going to disappoint you time and again.
Scientific knowledge does not have any special status or truth value conferred on it beyond the very educated guesswork of scientists and the time and effort and money that goes into verification. It's an endeavour that relies entirely on empiricism and the flaws that come with having limited human perceptions.
Does this mean that science is exactly the same as religion when it comes to reliability? Of course not, because the things that you choose to believe in when you believe in science are different, more accurate and reproducible.
To claim that science has some ineffable attribute that puts it above any other belief, on the other hand, is discounting and discrediting the effort and very nature of scientific knowledge, and ascribing to it the kind of mystic quality that is exactly what makes religious knowledge so ridiculous.
Serious question: If you're not expecting a response, why put it on social media? It might be healthier to externalise some of your rants through other means and move away from the expectation that things need to be on social media for them to matter.
This is how they move in Xiangqi, Chinese Chess, because if the one straight in front of them is blocked, the move is illegal.
I think the problem is this: the man was paid for his work. People don't seem to get that.
The deal was that he was paid an amount of money to make an art piece. That art piece was supposed to use another bunch of money as props. He was supposed to then give back the prop money after the exhibition was over.
When he made his work that used none of the money, that was fine. The museum rolled with it and gave him his dues. They didn't even ask for the prop money back when they realised he wasn't using it.
The problem is that he's now supposed to return the prop money that was to be used in the artwork, and he's refusing to.
He's already been paid, he's just being a shit to an organisation offering a public service.