I have to disagree with that. Most positions in factory jobs exist because human labour is very cheap, especially in terms of flexibility. I doubt there are many positions where a robot with a less humanoid shape wouldn't do a better job than a human or a humanoid robot. It's just often cheaper to employ these workers because you pay them a salary, either on a hourly basis or on a monthly one, yet don't have to worry about maintenance.
With robots you have less hourly costs, but a much bigger overhead, as you now have to hire qualified technicians to perform regular maintenance on those machines, and also semi-regularly order replacement parts. These costs will rise alongside the complexity of these robots.
And humanoid robots are much, much more complex than industrial robots, especially as they need to incorporate a lot more sensors that most industrial robots just won't need. Sensors that might be very sensitive or require regular calibrations to ensure they work properly. That doesn't come cheap.
Even when we look over the costs, humans will always be more versatile than robots. Give a person a book on how to do a job and they will perform it with the help of the books, and develop their working style to even work more efficiently.
In contrast, robots would need a much more thorough training in order to work properly. This could be done traditionally by hardcoding the logic, or by using neural networks, which would be more intuitive, but are prone to create undesired results if one doesn't have a good eye for the involved factors.
And this process would need to be repeated for each job, and again if jobs would be fused together. And of course one would have to adhere for hardware limitations. A processor can only work so fast, and there are limitations on storage space, data transfer speed and reliability that also come to play when it comes to saving the training data.
The easiest way is Docker Desktop, though I myself installed only the docker engine itself, which still was pretty easy to do. I did that because I had a dedicated server with no GUI. It does require to add the reposity though, but the documentation is pretty straightforward to follow.
Did you sync your library? It was confusing for the first time for me as well, but Jellyfin requires you to synchronise your library if you add or remove files.
Docker is basically similar to a flatpak: you download a package via Docker and it will practically do everything for you, so you only have to take care of the config file, if even needed.
I'm sceptical with Windows, considering that most programs are installed via EXE files, so the outcry will be huge. But I'm not saying it can't be a possibility.
With Ubuntu there would only be a chance of it happening if they also make their distro immutable. That way the user could not as easily install packages the traditional way. But even then there might be ways to disable this immutable mode for troubleshooting.
However, this, in my opinion, would cause a mass exodus as Canonical does not have the same advantage as Microsoft or Google have: Windows and android are, to an extent, closed off ecosystems. Thus switching to another system is very hard, as not every software is available on every other system, so potentially subpar alternatives and comparability layers, whose functionality mostly depends on whether the company behind the original system is actively fighting against these tools or not.
Ubuntu on the other hand, is a Linux distro, so you cab make it like Theseus and recreate this distro more or less with the sum of its parts, if need be.
It's kind of unclear what they use as sources nowadays. What is clear however is that they use their own search engine, Teclis, so it doesn't just act as a proxy for other search engines but searches will only remain in their own engine.
If a factory can afford robots, they already have acquired it. Industrial robots excel at their work already due to them being extremely precise already. If you need transportation robots, there are already ones that euter run on embedded rails or are already fully self-driving using wheels. Humanoid robots solve no issues that the industry hasn't already solved. It would just be a robot that would be less stable compared to any other transportation robot nor as precise as stationed ones while also more complex, and thus easier to break down, with the only upside it being that it's more of a generalist, but that is also sort of a moot point because a human could do it still cheaper.
The real use case of humanoid robots is very niche, with it being in environment where classic robot models fails, that being an environment that cannot be modified for classic robot use (e.g. mountainous terrain) where flying is not a viable option. After all, the human body, and the bodies of quite a few animals, excel at climbing rough and steep terrain whereas most, if not all, currently commercially available robots fail at it, or at the very least do very poorly.
I mean, the Terminal is basically just a mixture of the classic Command Prompt and the new Power shell, just packaged as a Microsoft Store app. So you can just use Powershell instead for most cases.
Still, screw the Microsoft Store App environment. It makes updating programs just that much more difficult than it needs to be.
This is why I appreciate immutable distros so much. Sure, you can't really do super sick stuff by tinkering with system files or modify some system components to make it your dream system, but the average user really doesn't need that. In most use cases, the flatpak version of a software will just run fine, sometimes even better than the standalone version due to certain outdated dependencies being hard to acquire/install that the Flatpak just integrates. Sure, Flatpak also has issues, but for the most part it works for the end user.
I wouldn't say you're too cynical with that view. I mean, the 2 German public broadcast channels (ARD, ZDF) are under constant fire for basically catering to an audience that is slowly dying out - both metaphorically and physically. Sure, some of these shows still have some popularity with younger generations, but that is few and far between. It's pretty much the same idea that plagues big corporations - change is scary as it poses a risk, so they avoid it - even if they literally have nothing to lose.
And I agree that the fractured streaming environment made it ever harder to license content. However, I don't think they should focus on licensing content to begin with. Instead, offer more grants for independent studios to create publicly available movies and shows. I mean, as we speak, Glitch is funding multiple shows to be viewed for free on YouTube. Why can't public broadcast channels do that more too?
As an example of the system being reworked into a better one: Germany's equivalent not only finances public broadcast channels, but also youtubers through the program FUNK. Granted, a lion's share still goes into the old TV channels, but at least that includes the French/German channel Arte, which has some top notch content (though usually documentaries) that it regularly uploads onto YouTube.
Also, IIRC, having Hydrogen as a main fuel source would be pretty expensive in most places, as it would need to be produced in factory with high safety standards, and there is little demand for hydrogen, so these factories would live and duebwith the hydrogen car's useage. There are a few places where it's actually feasible because there are some factories that produce it, as a byproduct with otherwise little demand, so it's effectively treated as waste.
Do you really need the entire installation? Would only the user folder(s) (C:\Users) suffice?
Alternatively, you could install Linux mint on a large enough USB stick and run it off there, if you don't mind the longer read/write times. You'd also need to change the boot order for it too.
@Godort@lemmy.ca mentioned it in another reply in this post. It's a Destroying Angel Mushroom. you usually avoid mushrooms like that by only foraging those who have no simulacrae and buying the other mushrooms in the store, or by intensely studying the differences and hoping you are lucky this time.
Also some screens still use that one to act as an USB hub for the PC. There's also a variant that is a but taller, but I don't know what that type is for.
It goes a bit further than just not berating. People often get defensive when you criticise something they like, which makes it harder to argue due to the other side suddenly treating the discussion as a fight. However by saying "it's not for me" in a rather roundabout way you shift the focus away from "is it good/bad" and more about whether the other can empathise with your reasoning, and in turn reflect your view onto themselves and maybe realize that they didn't notice something about their usage and feelings about AI that you already did.
Maybe trying to be objective is the wrong choice here? After all, it might sound preachy to those who are ignorant to the dangers of AI. Instead, it could be better to stay subjective in hopes to trigger self-reflection.
Here are some arguments I would use for my own personal 'defense':
I like to do the work by myself because the challenge of doing it by my own is part of the fun, especially when I finally get that 'Eureka!' moment after especially tough ones. When I use AI, it just feels halfhearted because I just handed it to someone else, which doesn't sit right with me.
when I work without AI, I tend to stumble over things that aren't really relevant to what I'm doing, but are still fun to learn about and might be helpful sometimes else. With AI, I'm way too focused on the end result to even notice that stuff, which makes the work feel even more annoying.
when I decide to give up or realize I can't be arsed with it, I usually seek out communities or professionals, because that way it's either done professionally or I get a better sense of community, but overall feel like I'm supporting someone. With AI, I don't get that feeling, but rather I only feel either inferior for not coming up with a result as fast as the AI does or frustrated because it either spews out bullshit or doesn't get the point I'm aiming for.
What would be your motivator to pay human artists? Why sign any?
I mean, the internet has given artists a way to spread their works and profit off them without any major record labels. So what artists will lose by that are exploitative companies whose only benefit is that your music will be sold by major retailers as physical CDs or Downloads.
I have to disagree with that. Most positions in factory jobs exist because human labour is very cheap, especially in terms of flexibility. I doubt there are many positions where a robot with a less humanoid shape wouldn't do a better job than a human or a humanoid robot. It's just often cheaper to employ these workers because you pay them a salary, either on a hourly basis or on a monthly one, yet don't have to worry about maintenance. With robots you have less hourly costs, but a much bigger overhead, as you now have to hire qualified technicians to perform regular maintenance on those machines, and also semi-regularly order replacement parts. These costs will rise alongside the complexity of these robots. And humanoid robots are much, much more complex than industrial robots, especially as they need to incorporate a lot more sensors that most industrial robots just won't need. Sensors that might be very sensitive or require regular calibrations to ensure they work properly. That doesn't come cheap.
Even when we look over the costs, humans will always be more versatile than robots. Give a person a book on how to do a job and they will perform it with the help of the books, and develop their working style to even work more efficiently. In contrast, robots would need a much more thorough training in order to work properly. This could be done traditionally by hardcoding the logic, or by using neural networks, which would be more intuitive, but are prone to create undesired results if one doesn't have a good eye for the involved factors. And this process would need to be repeated for each job, and again if jobs would be fused together. And of course one would have to adhere for hardware limitations. A processor can only work so fast, and there are limitations on storage space, data transfer speed and reliability that also come to play when it comes to saving the training data.