Same, but (at least in my case) you can’t ever listen to that bastard brain and do more than a small amount. The margin is thin and the prize of folly is being up at 3AM, yawning sleepily, but awake.
Same, but (at least in my case) you can’t ever listen to that bastard brain and do more than a small amount. The margin is thin and the prize of folly is being up at 3AM, yawning sleepily, but awake.
While your point that sometimes people just have AI image associated traits is very salient, I worry you might not be considering the lengths these things will be used and why online discourse (in my worried opinion) is utterly fucked: The past ain’t safe either.
For now we still have archive.org but without a third party/external source validating that old content…you can’t be sure it’s actually old content.
It’s trivial to get LLMs to get image gen prompts done to “spice up those old news posts” at best (without remembering to tag the article edited/updated or bypassing that flag entirely)…and utterly fuck the very foundation of shared and accepted past reality not just presently but to anyone using the internet itself to look through the lens of the past at worst.
“Hey this sounds like–”
Notices community
“–Oh. Wait, was I on Lemmy relaxing or avoiding work?”
Unironically yes. All of that comes at less expense to humankind, too. Even accounting for you.
Fuck. I cleaned everything on tax day and forgot to file!
Are we sure OP isn’t being meta? The message and demographics change if the punch is coming from other community posters.
People are supposed to include the fact that the pencil can go through because (layman terminology abuse ahead) of the “shape” the space-time topology is presenting (or I guess being induced to present as, if Sci-fi hypothetical) before you get to the explanation of the pencil as craft/observer and how the hole is how that shortened path through the wormhole appears from frames of reference not the pencil.
I like the bagel idea but then you have to hold it all horizontal while explaining so they don’t see the hole too early and you’re then just left intently staring at your audience across a bagel held at eye height like a slowly hungering loon. Or so I’ve heard.
Your comment, but without irony or sarcastic pretention. What exactly do you think semantics are?
There actually is an asterisk and most of us can see. Does this happen in your life often?
The fuck?
These totally normal human beings you sound like you deify…are you their psychiatrist, psychologist, therapist, counselor? Short of those professions or a former tutor who happened to treat all three…
Well, interesting thing to devote anecdotal brain power to, I’ll tell you that.
You’re like a rogue, misunderstood Guru on a journey of ‘I know leave me alone, I was describing the meta-woes of seeming to carry a dearth of knowledge, not the lack itself’.
Just pointing out from a passing ship; yeah, I see the semantic headaches and agree it’s a silly maritime tradition.
This is simply because of how batteries work. We’re focusing on lithium ion batteries, the most common in computing at our current point in time, and these are simplifications and not electrical engineering down to the exactest detail.
They can only hold the max charge when brand new. As they are used (charged and discharged), literal physical wear is happening within the battery (really, series of battery cells, it is not one chunk that fails at once). The capacity for the ions to “stay” on the desired side of the anode-cathode pair diminishes over time.
This is why batteries are advertised as maintaining x amount (usually 80%) after x cycles (usually 500) and why a device having a good Battery Management System (BMS) can be as important as how many mAH units a battery is rated as having.
As to why a plugged in battery suffers the same fate? Physics is cruel. A charge cycle is just defined as using an amount equal to 100% of your battery. Nothing says it has to be all at once.
A plugged-in lithium-ion battery still undergoes wear because it experiences minor discharges and recharges, contributing to charge cycles. Heat from constant charging and chemical aging also degrade the battery over time, leading to shorter battery life when eventually used unplugged.
I can’t get over it.
You’re one neat backpack and a decent repurpose-able display tablet with a kickstand away from a dream nomad set up.
How big is this power brick that it features so strongly in the ‘cons’ column!?
Pedals…Holy shit, yes, foot buttons. Wow. This is not sarcasm, I forgot pedals are just foot input, not limited to a specific purpose like music making or whatever. I don’t need more hand buttons I need pedals.
It’s nuts how much of all of ‘it’ (where ‘it’ is all fuckery) is simply down to that fact. Selfish altruism ought to be obvious.
Yeah caffeine is a siren song for a select few. It’s not necessarily an ‘everyone and every form of ADHD thing’, but it seems to present together often enough.
In my case it’s tricksy because the line between “this much coffee will help sleep” and “this much coffee will make you feel like it re-activated the magic conversion machine the actual ADHD meds just shut down” is about 1 oz one way or another from a 5oz cup (a real small amount in sane units, I didn’t convert).
Sensible. One taught you the consensus on what is perceived as the benchmark mind so to speak and a subset of how it ‘may go wrong’.
ADHD memes demonstrates just how much more ‘hold my beer’ that hole of ‘may go wrong’ gets.
Which is to say a lot. Hearing about the human condition vs seeing it echo in all the clucking time blind chickens.
Of course not. Why would I risk limiting our market share that way?
I demonstrate synergy and the ability to run an agile ship by instead outsourcing development of an app charging 1,000,000,000 people $15 monthly for the privilege of pressing the button and posting that they weren’t it this month.
Then I press it, because we must make sure our actions align with increasing shareholder value.
They’re agreeing with you it seems to me, and sharing their anecdotes that despite that reality which they agree with, let me re-emphasize that, despite that reality (that using one gender’s struggles to whatabout another’s is considered both ineffective and borders on conflict-seeking, inherently), that in their experience, they have seen the same the same whatabout tactics used to dismantle discussion when a “male centric” issue is the discussion catalyst, as when it’s a “female centric” issue originating the discourse.
I can’t speak for that other commenter to your follow up question though, so I’ll answer it for myself: I do not feel that whataboutism/dismissive responses are only used against men, no.
As a matter of fact, I feel that they’re employed more often to stiffle discussions on “woman centric” concerns precisely because of how little Men’s issues are discussed, and the reason for both is the same. That this is a side effect of the patriarchal systems in place doesn’t absolve either side from the requirement to be genuine if genuine discourse is sought, though.
I have seen what the commenter is mentioning and right here on Lemmy to boot. Because whether male or female, a whatabout is an easy rhetorical blanket to reach for, and many do.
I believe that both genders (including and specially men, who must own up to the fact that collectively we’re the gender with the greater frequency of offense against other genders if we’re ever going to get to addressing why it’s the same systemic patriarchal roots binding women’s rights that choke out the existence of men’s rights issues) have to be willing to communicate.
Women in aggregate are crying to be heard, but “TooManyMen” aren’t listening that they’re (women) speaking for them both too, and I feel those men who are able to hear some of that message need to help out in stopping the whataboutism wall in their brothers before they get going…
The same way that I believe there’s women who need to do the same for many of their sisters in the public square.
Divided is how we’ve gotten to this, unapologetically more viscerally dangerous for womanhood world that pretty much always has been, but I feel that it is united that we’ll reach any dreams of equity or widespread understanding between the genders, if we ever will.
In short, I agree “that that [whataboutism tainting discourse] is not a good way to respond to legitimate issues regardless of gender”, but the mere axiomatic observation falls short of the next step:
Both sides need to acknowledge and give each other the room to voice out their feelings, views, ideas, etc, genuinely (trolls and agitators need not be entertained) while still keeping an eye for the possibility that unity lies not in knowing the correct answer but in the shared questioning.
Fellas let’s do (and encourage our brothers to) better whether we think it’s fair or not, and ladies, understand (and share with the sisters who it’s safe to) that a hypocrite and someone whose barriers are breaking will appear briefly as the same before change is undergone.