Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)M
Posts
4
Comments
722
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • That's really not fair to universities or the inventors. Knowledge is not inherently evil, and things that have far reaching positive impacts can be used for nefarious purposes. Modern society has perverse incentives, but individuals adding to a corpus of humanity's knowledge are not the ones at fault.

  • Often times these purchases are not for the product itself, but how it can be incorporated into an existing product. I imagine if Meta makes bot accounts for people to follow/engage with, they can increase user retention and therefore ad revenue.

  • Yang is a grifter and no one should listen to him. Companies will happily use any excuse to fire employees and create a perception of job scarcity so that they can rehire workers who are scared and desperate and willing to take less compensation for more work.

    All of that said, AI is definitely being incorporated quite heavily into a lot of products. It's already caused issues with services we all rely on, and I hope we are able to hold companies accountable and stop patronizing them wherever possible. AI cannot do a lot of the things they are pretending it can and we are paying the price, not the companies responsible.

  • That behaviour would probably have the opposite effect that the people who created this rule would want.

    Why are you suggesting that? Ignoring capitalistic incentives, the rule is theoretically in place to increase safety. Your decision would have no impact on safety so I'm not sure why you think it would have the opposite effect.

  • Uber is not society. It is making a decision it thinks will increase its revenue. It is indeed a sign of a lack of progress, but the people responsible for the progress you want are us. I'm not chiming in on the policy itself, but your comment makes it feel like you are not as committed to the progress you want made. There are men in this thread saying that they hate what women have to put up with, but understand it and want them to feel safe. That's not what I'm getting from your comment. If I had to choose between being in a forest with you vs them I'd choose them because it seems like you're more concerned with how you're perceived than how other people are actually affected. I can imagine that being viewed as a predator must be uncomfortable, but women are often viewed as prey and that's not great either. I don't want to start playing at oppression olympics, but the fact that a post about a move to theoretically increase women's safety has you responding about your feelings as a perceived predator makes it seem like you don't think we as a society should do things that make women feel safer because it makes you feel like you're being viewed as a predator.

    I for the most part don't mind being around male strangers, but the ones that give me extra room on a sidewalk or in a bar are undoubtedly the ones I'm most comfortable around and ones I'd be most likely to engage with. Not because the others make me feel unsafe but because they make me feel safe. It's like if you invite someone into your house you can offer them food or a drink to help them feel comfortable or you can just not. You're not necessarily a bad person for not offering something, just potentially perceived as less inviting. Society is still seen and felt as the dominion of men for a lot of people, so when men go out of their way to make space for us, it signals that they are friendly and welcoming and want us to feel safe. I think if you want to work on that divide, the best thing to do is make the women you're around feel safe. It's unfortunate, but it's up to us to destigmatize our own identities. I just don't think your comment does that.

  • Per RAINN, 57% of perpetrators are white. I'll charitably imagine you're attempting to point out perceived hypocrisy in gender vs race selection, but you're perpetuating racist and xenophobic stereotypes. White men commit rape at more than twice the rate of black men, and naturally born citizens commit crimes at rates higher than both documented and undocumented immigrants.

    If you want to make the case that it's a discriminatory policy, you're welcome to do so, but tying it to false perceptions of race is probably not the best move. It's coming off as reactionary at best.

  • "But what we learned, and this bears going forward, is that she wasn't calling the shots," Kaine said. "Stephen Miller is calling the shots, and as long as he is calling the shots without reforms, this is going to continue to be a very, very rogue, renegade department."

    So his issue is that she was not calling the shots? Does he think miller masterminded the horse ad too? I'm sure there's some more to that quote, but he's an idiot for thinking that anyone under Trump was going to be good for the country. One of 7 Dems to break and support her and he complains that Miller is the issue. I'm glad he can admit a mistake, but he clearly doesn't understand it. I wish he was the one paying for it instead of all the innocent people who have lost their freedom, family, and lives.

  • It's Florida, so it feels like the point is moot, but in case it's not exceedingly obvious, do not vote for this guy or the one running for senate.

  • I've not seen people Lemmy advocate for any of these kinds of bills and have seen several posts against this kind of thing. Judging by the upvotes, this seems to be generally supported. Can you provide some examples of what you're referring to?

  • product manager for AI strategy

    Person who depends on AI for job safety tells others they must ALSO depend on AI for job safety.

  • Thank you for this comment. I have backups I tested on implementation and rummaged through two years ago after a weird corruption issue, but not once since. I still get alerts about them, so I just assume they're fine, but first thing Monday I'm gonna test them. I feel stupid for not having implemented regular checks already, but will do so now.

  • Not sure what you're considering as "modern", but as someone why cut their teeth on C++ and still actually enjoys it, plenty of modern languages have their uses. It really depends on what you're looking for, but I've spent years in C++ and will still use python as a go to for small projects.

  • Removed Locked

    Biologists

    Jump
  • I think my main point of contention is dessert. If I've just eaten chocolate cake, would I prefer to see boobs or eat garlic bread? It's admittedly one of the few scenarios with a definitive answer for me, and unfortunately I lean towards boobs. I love and respect all who would choose garlic bread, but I just cannot. I hope I'm still allowed at pride.

    Upvoted you anyway, because it's the hard conversations like this that are necessary in the queer community. I appreciate your advocacy.

  • Removed Locked

    Biologists

    Jump
  • Nah. The meaning of life is banging hotties. That holds regardless of sex or gender of either party.

    but I've seen the way they look at garlic bread. If shoving warm garlic bread into their needy hole is what they're into, then good for them.

  • Yea, I mentioned in my comment that there was a confluence of issues, but the article does point out that the AI translation made the statement more definitive.

    Edit to add:

    As part of our post-mortem on this article’s evolution, PCWelt’s executive editor pointed out that the translation makes the article sound more definitive than its native German. He says that in the context of the article, the German word “soll” signals a rumored expectation, but the English translation used “will” instead of something more akin to “is rumored to.”

  • I thought this was a very well written, transparent article that took accountability as seriously as it should. I am still not sure why people are using AI for translation when translation software already existed. People mention that AI is more context aware, but I feel like when you saw those friction points in old translation software it prompted you to look further into the context, whereas AI will just make an executive decision and people feel like it must be right because it's AI. I guess it's possible old language software, or even a translator, would have done the same thing, but I still think people would have less inherent trust in the old software alone. I do want to point out that this AI issue was just a small part of the problem and they addressed plenty of other issues and how they plan to remedy those.

  • Not sure if something new is coming out covering the legends, but presumably people aren't taking issue with things building off known IP, just that most sequels today are cheap cash grabs of objectively lower quality than the original. Most works coming out about Arthurian legends now tend to be a new analysis applied to the existing story, thus introducing new themes and adding layers, not just doing simple mimicry. But maybe I'm not aware of the specific media you're referring to.

  • I agree to a certain extent, but also would point out that the longer something exists, the more likely it is to be exploited by capital and then just be objectively worse. A lot of the good things are still there, just pushed aside and hidden by people with ulterior motives. Plenty of queer youth still find a lot of community and comfort online when it's absent in their lives. There is definitely something to be said about how things shape people vs how people shape things though.

  • Gardening @lemmy.world

    Orchid Spikes Getting Too Long

  • RPGMemes @ttrpg.network

    When it's been more than a week since the last session and we have to piece together what was happening

  • LGBTQ+ @beehaw.org

    Harry Potter TV Series Boycott

  • Gaming @beehaw.org

    Opinions on Content Creator Packs?