HelloMcFly

The changed title on this post is problematic.

The only thing that gives their opinions any weight is a lack of a formal western education? Do you have any idea how awful that sounds? Surely the point you are trying to make is more nuanced than that.

> I wouldn't be surprised at all if this is happening at the request of that government in the first place

You wouldn't be surprised if the incumbent candidate requested that Meta platform and systematically encourage voting for their rightwing opponent? What do you think happened here?

And as for me, I want people with morals to stick around and try to influence things in a positive direction. It's so easy to get on one's high horse and say "then go elsewhere", but everyone acting like that is a short path to a worse world. Tend the gardens you are in while you can, but I don't blame anyone who just can't carry that torch day-in, day-out.

Birdwatching is truly one of the cheapest possible hobbies you can have. Yes, you can make it expensive if you're committed to photographing them and traveling to remote locations to find "life list" birds, but that's not the vast majority of hobbyists.

I understand the rationale here, but I just don't believe I'm worth more to Disney (in this instance) as a recipient of these shitty ads than if they let me pay $2000/year to not have them; of course, that is more than I'm willing to pay.

I am receptive to the idea repeated across responses that Disney (or any other internet media company) cannot do this as a tier for all because it degrades the value of the advertising audience they sell to ad buyers by removing high earners. But it is still difficult for me to buy that there is truly no line at which it is worth it for them.

> If somebody asked you how much money you needed to do something, and you had no competition and they would not or could not walk away, you wouldn't have an answer either. You'd take all the money.

I mean I wouldn't because I'm not a moral-free corporate entity whose only goal is to maximize my own gain. Further, the analogy doesn't apply because in the streaming and internet media context I can walk away and have walked away. I do not use any social media except this site and Letterboxd; I've moved largely to physical media and season buys of shows I like, I watch sports on the antenna, NBA TV, or illicit streaming sites with ad blockers running overtime (unless it's on NBA League Pass, which doesn't advertise to me!).

You are both right in your ways. In-group trust arises naturally, while generalized trust requires constructed institutions.

I just want a company to tell me truly what it is worth to them from me to not show me ads. Maybe the cost is truly so much higher than I expect that I wouldn't pay it, but for fuck's sake give me the option! Is it $15/month extra instead of $5? $30/month extra? Somewhere, that line exists where the company would financially benefit, I just wish they'd actually define it.

When I was getting married, I engaged a baker to make pies for our wedding. Two weeks before the wedding they cancelled, saying very apologetically they had not catered many weddings with only pies and couldn't do it at the price they quoted. I had to practically beg them to just give me a price that was profitable for them (20% higher, in the end), and then let me decide. This feels just like that.

Bioware hasn't been very successful - creatively or economically - in some time. I loved their heyday more than most, but they're far from what they once were.

I'm not here to dismiss critiques, concerns, or fair observations. An inefficient, overfinancialized system is brutalizing all players. But to make such a comment about doctors "at large"? Everyone's experience is their own, but it's just perpetuating a state that I find wrong, (ironically?) unempathetic, and overall dismaying.

> I swear they all just make it up as they go.

Good rule of thumb: trust the person who isn't telling you to spend more money, usually.

Sure, there are bad apples in medicine just like there are in tech. But knowing many doctors personally, reading this fills me with equal parts frustration at your cynicism and sadness for what they endure.

What's the difference for a physician today vs. 30 years ago? Among other things, today's physicians struggle because they're being crushed: continuously squeezed by the financialization of their hospital/practice, carrying larger debt, more time spent fighting the insurance machine just to get basic treatments approved. On top of all of that, they are less respected in general and often face outright hostility from patients... all while being paid relatively less than their predecessors.

The comparison rankles, obviously.

> Does the apple tv do acr? It has to, to do the first party "magic" it does.

I'm sorry, you're stating this like some obvious fact. Apple has previously said this is not the case and they do not do ACR. The Apple TV is the only Apple device I have, so you can set aside any reflexive critiques of my brand loyalty. What is your precise claim? Why am I a dullard for reading that Apple TV does not use ACR and believing it?

The entire reason I bought an Apple TV was to reduce the amount of data skimming happening in the background and ads being shoved in front of my face in the foreground, it's not like I'm lousy with options.

It's merely become part of the culture of new model drops even as it's become a bit less useful as a diagnostic.

Thankfully it was only out of print for less than a year. My wife and I still subscribe, and I have to say it's still a delight to get delivered and have it sitting around the house. Visitors love it!

I understand that is your point, I don't understand why it matters to you when the collaboration happened? This clearly became a side project for them, one of passion that also seemed to be about exploring their own AI capabilities. Not every collaboration needs to or should start from the ground floor. What would have been the benefit of them collaborating earlier (setting aside it may have diminished their own drive/interest in the project)? The discovery gets recognition earlier? To what end?

I'm not saying anything, because I've never seen or heard of your experience. I'm only reporting mine. I'm not on the free tier, maybe that matters ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I use Gemini more than any other model at the moment, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about with this experience.

This is the question the judge ruled on, their opinion is precisely delving into this topic.

The energy costs of the cloud computing required for gaming are substantially less in power - not to mention overall demand - than LLMs. Come on, we're not in the same energy ballpark here.

I don't really feel like you engaged with the point at all. You fixated on the original commenter's exact phrasing to dodge the argument: provenance isn't separate from art.

If someone strongly values human agency and intent, knowing a piece lacks both (in part, or entirely) is a completely rational reason to call it bad. Many would argue (myself included) that the primary difference between "art" and "content" is human agency, effort, and intent. The more the outcome is driven by a black-box algorithm, the more that agency and intention are compromised.

Art is not evaluated based solely on the isolated output. Intent, context, and human effort are fundamental parts of why people value a work. People calling an AI piece "bad" by default are responding to that lack of human agency and intent. The process is part of the work, so factoring how it was made into your judgment is entirely fair, even as the primary deciding factor.

A fair retort is that holding every creative output to this standard, like a flyer for a community fair, is needlessly critical. That is not an unreasonable position. Still, I think it is fair for one to believe that using an AI image is a clear low-effort signal that strips away the human element that makes community events appealing in the first place. And for commercial products: if your ad is low effort, why should I believe your product is not?

Small correction:

To get an en dash in Word, type "<word> - <word>" (word space hyphen space word) followed by spacebar.

To get an em dash, type "<word>--<word>" (word hyphen hyphen word) followed by spacebar.

The removed sections:

1. Letters That Produced Miraculous Results - cut because correspondence norms had massively changed between 1936 and 1981

2. Seven Rules for Making Your Home Life Happier - cut because its 1930s-era perspectives on marriage and domestic life didn't age that well

Personally, I think some of the edits in the remaining sections are more controversial than the removal of those two sections. I think the revision lost quite a bit of Dale's charm and just felt a bit less idiosyncratic in a bad way.

Is building a bookshelf with adjustable shelves is "over-engineered" because a single fixed plank would hold books just as well? Who gets to be the arbiter on which requirements are the "real" requirements?

> Except in the world of "anything is possible," mirror life would have no food. All biomolecules are chiral.

Many essential biomolecules, nutrients, and amino acides are achiral (e.g. carbon dioxide, water, ammonium, phosphate, sulfate, glycine, and more). Mirror organisms could easily - at least in the realm of plausibility - function as autotrophs to convert sunlight, CO2, etc. into organic sugars, or extract energy from inorganic materials like hydrogen or iron paired with CO2.

Given how the world is heating up and weather is getting more extreme, I think there has to be space for player welfare. That doesn't mean there aren't options for how to implement these things, but I don't think adding 2x 3-minute hydration break (for instance) transforms football into some unrecognizable bastardized version of itself provided the impetus is health and safety vs. economics.

I think hydration breaks can be defensible as long as they are a) conditionally triggered by pre-existing criteria that is b) created by an honest assessment of player welfare independent of economic considerations.

I can't say I think the halftime show is a big deal at all though.

> it's widely accepted that there isn't much benefit for most people above 1080p

Is it? By whom? For larger TVs, closer distance, or a combination of the two, there absolutely is value from 4k. https://i.rtings.com/images/optimal-viewing-distance-televis...

Though I'm unlikely to ever upgrade from 1440p on my computer, personally.

I have slender mountain mint and it used to be a popular pollinator spot... until I planted figwort. Never had anything get action like the figwort!