AnIdiotOnTheNet

> I think it is fairly safe to say that rehabilitation and counciling programs to stop shoplifting would be far more expensive and ineffective than imprisonment;

I don't see how. The cost of housing a prisoner in the US varies wildly by state, but the average is $40k/yr.

> A "relatively small loss" is quite large by the tenth time it happens because nobody got punished

Again, those 10 events probably amount to an order of magnitude less than the $40k it would cost to house the prisoner.

I'd much rather prison be reserved for violent offenders who are judged unsafe to keep anywhere else.

Imprisonment is a huge burden on the tax payer for the sake of correcting a relatively small loss by the store. Surely we can come up with a better means of both penalizing and dissuading such behavior.

Only because the plan was opposed on equally political grounds. The idea was a welcomed one by the people who voted for the politicians in favor of it, and not welcomed by the ones they didn't vote for, so the points went where they belonged.

If it was so certain that they had no intention of going through with it, why not call their bluff and turn the responsibility for killing it back on them?

> Don't blame marketing, blame capitalism.

I can blame both, as well as the underlying sociopathic mechanisms that the modern understanding of the terms necessitate.

If I am not mistaken what you are describing is market research, not marketing. Marketing is, in practice if not theory, about invasion of attention and manipulation. If marketing were not these things then companies would be content to have their products discovered in catalogs and store shelves where interested parties willing to devote attention to such things would readily find them.

The right solution in my opinion would be to nationalize the universities and end this predatory nonsense.

> The fact one of the pictures is the house on literal fire, coupled with this context, goes to show that some people really don't belong anywhere in marketing or sales.

Namely, honest people who aren't total shitbags always trying to put one over on their fellow human beings for profit.

They'll be hurt by it, obviously, but I'd rather take that pain now than condemn the future indefinitely.

Of course that puts me at odds with what is apparently the vast majority of humanity. Fuck you, got mine and all that.

The real embarrassment is writing beautiful well-structured code that no one can find fault in... to support a game no one plays.

If you manage to make a successful game don't take shit from anyone about the way the code looks. They're just Monday-morning quarter-backing.

Right, which means perfectly preventable problems just plague you until they become catastrophic enough that they require life-saving care. The bare minimum of course.

Telemarketing is just a subset of the greater evil of marketing in general. It is an industry of invading your attention in an effort to manipulate you into doing something you otherwise wouldn't.

We should take every opportunity to worsen their lives as they have employed themselves to worsen ours.

4. This is intentionally floated with nebulous veracity in order to gauge public reaction before making it official.

If so, the reaction I've seen is quite positive. Very unlikely though.

Does webui not require testing on each platform+browser combo? Or are we just accepting that sometimes it is going to break and not allowing the same consideration for native GUI frameworks?

Let me ask you something: would you value a set of ~5 games that are an imagining of VCS-era console games as envisioned to exist in an alternate timeline where the Soviet Union was the predominant exporter of culture rather than the US?

Because that's the kind of thing I come up with and would be making if I had a life situation where I didn't have to sell entirely too much of my time for food, shelter, and health care.

So I guess what I'm asking (genuinely) is, is that the kind of art you really want to see a lot more of[0], and filter through, and one way or another pay for? Or is it perhaps better the production of such things is the domain of people who do not require such support?

[0] I do, but I'm clearly biased. Count me among the people who want shorter games with worse graphics made by people who are paid more to work less.

Also they didn't consider themselves to be unique and special snowflakes that needed non-standard widgets and theming.

Also the internet wasn't as big a thing so marketing hadn't taken over computing yet.

Ok. Can we at least revert to sanity in the FOSS realm then?

My guess is no, since for many writing FOSS software is just a way to hone their saleable skills for BigCorp where they'll spend their days finding new creative ways to put ads in front of people's eyes.

> In the end, it's up to consumers.

...to vote for politicians who will regulate this shit.

Pushing the responsibility to consumers is just BigCorp's messaging to externalize the responsibility.

> Another thing, 3 hours a day spent on walking alone seems like a waste of time to me.

Good job I'm not you then.

> Finding time to get your 8 miles of walking a day in would be hard enough.

I frequently do 6 mile walks with my dog, 8 miles would only be about 3 hours. Considering how much time people spend planted in front of a TV each day on average that shouldn't be that hard to hit. Tell you what, have the corpos give me an extra 1.5hrs each day and I'll give up 1.5hrs of TV and then we'll have enough for that 8 miles.

We really need to take back our time from the exploitation class. A lot of problems go away if you work fewer hours a week, but there exist very few jobs that will pay anywhere near a livable wage for that. Like, I could easily survive on half my income if only someone would give me back half my time for it, but that just isn't an option.

This is precisely the kind of asinine thing I've unfortunately come to expect from the internet re: philosophy.

They require that you select the option that gives you the greatest chance of survival, while not ever defining the concept of self. Fair enough if your goal is to determine what a person conceptualizes "self" as, but you're not going to get a very good answer with a paltry few railroaded binary choices. They recorded my conclusions without the important bit: the reasoning behind those conclusions.

> The question is also 'why does a human form a single consciousness?'

The answer should be obvious to anyone earnestly thinking about the question: it doesn't. The "single consciousness" is just the abstraction we apply. We can, and often do, apply that same model to entire groups of people from cliques, to communities, to cultures, to nation states and just about any cross section of humanity one cares to. With a little effort we can apply the same model to internal mental processes[0].

The human mind is good at abstraction, which is fortunate because abstractions are useful. Unfortunately, it is often so preoccupied with any given abstraction that it forgets that abstractions are only useful contextually, because abstractions are not reality.

[0] As in Internal Family Systems, a model sometimes used in therapeutic contexts.

The only significant difference in priorities as regards speed would be the modern prioritization of "developer time", ads, and telemetry.

I can run Windows 95 applications at better than era-appropriate speed, in an x86 emulator written in javascript running on a web browser. That's at least 3 layers of virtual machine abstraction and the applications are still faster.

So if you're saying "the comparison isn't fair because modern software is too shit to hold up", then I agree, but if you're trying to tell me there is something else inherent to modern computing that makes software so many orders of magnitude slower, than I request that you show data to support that claim.

The whole debate over what is and isn't conscious is foolish, if you ask me. It's essentially a proxy for what does and does not deserve ethical consideration. In that regard our desire to exploit the universe around us without consideration will bias our reasoning considerably. The debate around ML models that you are referencing is illustrative of this.

The much harder ethical quandary is how we should operate in a universe where we are not specially privileged, and as a species I think we are generally unwilling to consider such a thing.

> The moment AI is bootstrapped to the point where it surpasses human ability to advance the AI SOTA, it's pretty much game over—from a Darwinian point of view at least.

How so? The vast majority of life on earth is far less intelligent than human beings by any objective measure, and yet it still thrives.

Is that a problem? Panpsychists don't seem to think so. Why must human beings believe that, in all the universe, they are a particularly special arrangement of energy?

> Well of course it does.

Why does it follow that software designed for modern hardware, running on modern hardware, should be slower than software designed for older hardware running on slightly newer hardware?

I think many commenters here are unaware of exactly how face-slappingly WTF it is that these lawyers did. Even if ChatGPT were replaced with a well respected human legal expert saying exactly the same things, they still cited case law that they couldn't verify the existence of, let alone that the context of the ruling was actually helpful to their cause.

Then when a judge told them "hey, we can't find any of these cases, what the hell is going on?" they doubled down. They're basically saying "trust me bro, these rulings totally happened and they totally say we're right".

I currently don't like the implementation as it relies on FBS, which relies on the unethical practices I became vegetarian (and am becoming vegan) to avoid. The core concept is fine though, and I'd eat it. I didn't make this choice because I hated the taste of meat.

Honestly though, I think vegan meat replacements are pretty much a solved problem already as far as I'm concerned. Between Beyond and Impossible and all the more traditionally made meat substitutes I haven't missed meat in ages.

What I'm really finding difficult to replace, now that I'm trending towards complete veganism, is cheese. Some substitutes work ok in some contexts, but the state of vegan pizza, for instance, is extremely sad.

> "Is rendering this report table more complicated than a scene from Overwatch?" You will likely answer "no", hang your head in shame for a moment

Hell, even just asking if it is more complicated than DOOM should illicit an even more appropriate level of shame. DOOM ran on a 386 with 4MB of RAM and 12MB of disk.

> SUVs make the world dangerous and scary for people outside of cars: pedestrians, cyclists, other small personal vehicles users.

Unfortunately the way a lot of American culture works means that this is actually the desired outcome. Cars today are basically advertised on their pedestrian killing prowess and, unsurprisingly, have even been used as weapons of terror quite frequently recently.

Yes, we are all helpless and changing anything is just too hard to actually do. 100 people die every day in car accidents, but literally nothing can be done about this without changing something so that means literally nothing can be done.

I'm kinda really fucking sick of this particular American mindset towards cars, school shootings, gerrymandering, corporate greed, and basically everything else that sucks about our society.