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/)B
Posts
2
Comments
91
Joined
8 mo. ago

  • I find that there's an almost constant stream of updates, most of which I don't care about. So I tend do the security updates once every few days, and do all the other updates (mostly for flatpak stuff) once every few months - unless there is a particular update that I actually want.

  • I shut my computer down whenever I intend to stop using it for more than a couple of hours. So that means every night, and some other times as well. Starting the computer doesn't take very long. So I don't feel like it is a hassle or trouble. Being completely shut down saves a bit of power; and there are other minor benefits.

    One benefit is that it prevents accidentally waking the computer in the middle of the night, filling the room with light and noise while I fumble in a tired state trying to shut it down. (Not saying that happens often, but it has happened - and it is not nice.)

  • I've personally never used one of those apps, and I don't intend to. But I'm a bit of an outlier for this kind of stuff. I could give my reasons, the response from 'normal' people would just be "yeah, but ..."

    I wouldn't be surprised if "some" Australians are spending absurd amounts of money on... well... anything really. There's a lot of people in Australia, and so if you look for someone with a trait like that, you'll probably find someone. And I also wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people had allowed themselves to be deskilled in terms of meal organisation and food preparation to the point that they now are reliant on a service that has burrowed its way into their psyche. ... Not sure how widespread that is though.

  • Maybe best to save the outrage for when / if you ever get an unwanted warning.

  • Why are they using the developer's boastful claim as the article title? They could have gone with a neutral title stating that the development was being considered, or even negative title quoting someone who says it is a horrible idea. I wonder why they chose to use the positive quote like that...

    I suppose maybe the answer to my question is that journalism is often now about being provocative rather than informative. By stoking people's emotions (usually anger), you get more engagement - which is apparently the only metric that matters these days.

  • I guess if you want to ride an electric motorbike, you will need to register it and get a motorcycle license; and follow road rules relating to motorcycles. The bar is higher because the dangers are higher.

  • Ok. So earlier I said you must understand that many things are subtle. But I guess you haven't yet got to that yet. Think on it.

  • Dude, you must understand that many things in life are subtle and depend heavily on context and history. There are many words, gestures, dates, etc. that has special meaning to certain groups of people. The meanings are not intrinsic - they could be changed or forgotten or whatever - but they are also quite real, and often powerful and important.

    Your original statement was a bit of a nothingburger. Yeah, people / countries can change. whoop-di-do. Nothing wrong with saying it. Maybe some people will appreciate your thoughts on that. But it probably is not going to add much to a discussion that has everything to do with cultural context.

    On the other hand, in your continued followups you are somehow trying to defend the 'wisdom' of your original post. These follow ups are kind of insulting. You apparently know nothing at all about this topic, and yet for some reason you are insisting that your views are relevant. Why are you doing that? I suggest that you let your idea stand on its own merit without you fighting a battle to try to defend it. We don't need this conflict.

  • Pretty hot in Melbourne...

    It's almost midnight and the temp is still 30C.

  • I think it's a mistake to associate the violent actions of unknown individuals with the motives and beliefs of a large and very diverse set of people asking for change.

  • yeah. fucking millennials always trying to be more caring. Bastards. Totally ridiculous.

  • I guess there are many options for losing three words.

    Shark expert says it's a 'terrible idea' to swim in Sydney Harbour after heavy rain

    Shark expert says it's a 'terrible idea' to swim in Sydney Harbour after heavy rain

    Shark expert says it's a 'terrible idea' to swim in Sydney Harbour after heavy rain

    Shark expert says it's a 'terrible idea' to swim in Sydney Harbour after heavy rain

  • My apartment building hosts honeybees on the rooftop (as I think many apartments do)... and although it seems like a good thing - in that it contributes to allowing plants and animals to thrive in the middle of a city - perhaps it is actually not a good thing, because perhaps those bees are just using our support to muscle out other species that would otherwise be thriving. So that's difficult.

    I guess there are subtleties and complexities, and different things are good in different in different situations, and whether supporting honeybees is good or not depends on the overall strategy; and I personally really don't know if these particular bees on our roof are worth supporting or not.

  • I think this kind of things is potentially quite damaging, but in a subtle way. I read the Guardian article about this, and they highlighted some of the problems. They talked about taking opportunities from actual real people; and the potential for amplifying racial stereotypes. But I reckon there are other subtle problems that I'd like to highlight as well.

    It could be argued that the AI character is made in good faith, for entertainment only, with no intention to deceive. And perhaps efforts are taken to be culturally sensitive / accurate, or whatever. So then what's the problem?

    To understand it, perhaps we should first think about why people like this kind of content at all. Different people like things for different reasons, so each individual can think about this from their point of view. But I'd say that a lot of people watch animal videos and documentaries because it gives them a sense of what these animals are like. It shows what they look like, what kind of environment they live in, how they interact in that environment, and how they interact with people. Depending on the footage, it can also give a sense of achievement and effort in what was required to get that footage. Similarly for the presenter; seeing how a expert person with such personal experience and connection with the land talk about and interact with animals - its engaging and gives a sense of learning and excitement.

    When watching an artificial video of this kind, it can perhaps trigger that same kind of enjoyment - but its empty of value. The presenter is not connected to the land or an expert. They don't exist at all. And the video is not showing evidence of how the animals behave or look; but rather just an AI's impression of it. It certainly didn't take any significant effort to record - because it wasn't recorded at all! So although it can trigger a similar sense of value in our brains, we're not actually getting what we feel like we're getting. It's empty calories so to speak. And its realism is entirely dependent real footage taken by real people who actually did the work. The AI generated version is easy and cheap to create, but the actual source data that it relies on is not. I suppose that's part of the 'theft' that Lenore Taylor @ The Guardian is talking about; but I have one more thing I want to draw attention to.

    At best it is empty entertainment, but it can also give a warped and misleading view of the things we're supposedly learning about. It can also result in general apathy and disconnection. We see this realistic and engaging footage, but we know it is fake - and therefore of little importance or value. But it does look real, so it kind of makes everything else seem fake and of little value too. Any quirks or differences in other things we see start to be doubted or questioned. Images and experiences that use to be amazing and inspiring, and now just flat - because a general sense of doubt and indifference. The things people say, the way their talk, their passion - all under doubt. It may cause a kind of death of inspiration for some people exposed to it.

    The propagation of artificial videos outpaces our social, legal, financial, and psychological systems for handing them. Probably we'd all do a bit better if this stuff wasn't being turbo charged by ultra-wealth companies and individuals. (Yes, as usual, I'm blaming wealth inequality.)

    Well, like I said, it's subtle. So I hope I was about to convey my thoughts clearly enough that someone sees what I'm getting at!

  • Here is their statement on their website.

    Check this out:

    We also apologise to Dr Randa Abdel-Fattah for how the decision was represented [...]

    They're doing one of those classic bullshit non-apologies. "Sorry you misunderstood" rather than admitting fault. They completely fucked it up, and now even while cancelling the event they cannot bring themselves to take responsibility for it. That's low.

  • I don't think Trump is going to ask us to join a war. The idea of Australia will not even enter his mind unless it is directly relevant. For example he will probably think of Australia if he is intending to invade Australia; but aside from that, it would be up to his advisers to remind him that we exist.

  • I find this upsetting. I don't have anything new to say about it though. We all know what needs to be done already. And we know that we're going to be seeing the overarching slow-motion disaster ramp up for years to come.

  • For many years, Australia's main defence strategy has basically been to maintain an alliance with the USA, to discourage any unpredictable would-be attackers. But it seems now that the USA itself is becoming unpredictable, and certainly unreliable. They are suddenly just as likely to invade an 'ally' themselves rather than defend them.

    “You don’t need always to send tanks or artillery through the border to occupy territory. But you can really terrorise neighbouring countries or countries further away with drones, disturbing strategic infrastructure and how it can operate or not operate.”

    I guess that doesn't work as well vs Australia, because we don't have any land neighbours who can push in after a drone assault. Probably our most powerful defensive strength now is that we're someone isolated. Lucky us, I guess.

  • movies @piefed.social

    Children of Men - overrated?

  • Linux Gaming @lemmy.world

    Bottles: how can I repair / debug a bottle?