[-] [email protected] 14 points 1 day ago

This doesn't sound sustainable at all. A billionaire only needs so much gasoline, food, medicine, TVs...

Collapse of entire industries will happen way before we even get a chance to see industries reinvent themselves to cater to billionaires. Don't believe me? Just look at what happened to the economy during the pandemic.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago

Mhmm. Where exactly do you draw the line regarding use of force as a preventative measure?

[-] [email protected] 31 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Considering the vast majority of people that walk around naked in the public locker room without an ounce of shame are people over 50 or over 60, I find this comment has got it backwards. There seems to be a universal constant that the older you get, the less you care about what other people think. I know I have experienced this myself, and most older people I ask tend to agree vehemently. It also explains why so many young people are embarrassed by their parents.

My advice to teens and people in their early twenties: don't worry what other people think of you. No one else is thinking about you much at all.

[-] [email protected] 12 points 3 days ago

You can have a capitalist economy without billionaires. It just requires a wealth tax and welfare state. Nothing wrong with small businesses and anti trust.

All that said, UBI is inevitable with the rise of automation, as the value of labour drops to zero. The only question is: will the labour class fight for their share of the pie, or will they roll over and just die of hunger.

[-] [email protected] 9 points 3 days ago

This is the inevitable outcome of a two-party or first-past- the-post-system.

[-] [email protected] 32 points 4 days ago

Indeed, though I think that a house with solar is more valuable too, so that argument kinda falls flat.

It's just uneducated, backwards thinking is all it really is.

[-] [email protected] 8 points 5 days ago

Free markets are rarely naturally sustainable. Left to their own devices, they converge into monopolies; it's explained pretty simply with a bit of game theory and the advantages afforded by the network effect and economies of scale.

This is exactly why the US had historically adopted anti trust laws, the FTC, and the Competition Bureau. The public used to know what's up. Clearly many people haven't gotten the memo, and are all too happy to drink the ancap cool aid.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 5 days ago

Might be interesting to ask ourselves, what the natural order really is: is intergenerational support the outlier, or the norm? Historically and across cultures.

For comparisons, intergenerational housing of millennials was often viewed as an anomaly, but in fact it is generational housing that is an anomaly, specifically a product of post-war affluence.

[-] [email protected] -2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

I'll take garden variety disagreements about economic policies over power seizure any day of the week. Compromise and not getting all the things you want is a hallmark of a healthy democracy.

This is how low the bar is and I lay 100% blame on authoritarians more interested in grabbing power than compromising themselves.

[-] [email protected] 6 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

You use LLMs for everything? Seems strange, as they don't reason. They are specifically designed to mimic human speech. So they are great for tasks that require presenting information that looks intelligible, or at least are very easily testable, but beyond that you run into serious issues with hallucination fast...

Or do you mean "AI" as in data science and automation? That's a very different thing which is a bit off topic. That Kind of "AI" is neither new nor has the hallucination/ecological/cost/training effort issues associated with it

I dunno dude, all your answers talk about "AI" in suspiciously vague terms. "I use AI to ..." is the new "built with blockchain". Skip the marketing terms and talk shop.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

Sounds like neither of you watched the video. Fortunately, I did so here's a quick summary. The thesis is that music is getting worse, for a few reasons. Author argues:

  • Auto tune and other modern digital sound production tools are overused to correct pitch and timing, making music too synthetic. Real music has imperfections that makes music just sound more artificial. Basically, taking the human element out of it.
  • Streaming has cheapened the value of a single song because of how easy it is to skip to another song. So arguably it is not technically just worse music, it's our appreciation for it.

The first point has been touched on by many other people. It's a common trend in a lot of places outside of music too. People are replaced with machines and processes in a lot of settings especially in corporations and commerce, and while that's great for efficiency and predictability, it creates a sterile landscape devoid of human expression. This is not to say all music has this. But mass market music is a chief culprit.

The other point really resonates with me with videogames and videogame sales. You can get a dozen great steam games for the same price as a single Nintendo title, yet I probably put 10x the time into that one Nintendo title than all the other steam games combined. Had to get every bit of value out of that expensive Nintendo purchase. YMMV on this point though. I don't stream music so I can't say how it has affected me personally.

[-] [email protected] 31 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Terminals are powerful and flexible, but still slower than a dedicated UI to see states at a glance, issue routine commands, or do text editing.

Terminal absolutists are as insufferable as GUI purists. There is a place and time for both.

105
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

This is currently my primary frustration with Connect: complete opaqueness regarding instances.

I understand that one design philosophy might argue that instances shouldn't matter, so why show it at all. But it does matter, especially on All, and in comments. I think at the current and near-term state of development, obscuring instances creates more confusion than it alleviates.

  • In this example, I have no idea what community this is. Where is "here"? "General" is a super broad category (does a multi-community even make sense for this type of community name?). Is this /c/general for a general purpose instance, or /c/general of an instance dedicated to a very specific topic? Is that instance worth checking out? Who knows?
  • Is this an instance I'm subscribed to yet?
  • is this the same /c/general I was in last time with a moderation policy and moderators I didn't like, or a new one?
  • Is my instance defederated from seal_of_approval and will they receive my message? Who knows?
  • Are most responders coming from lemmy.world, from sketchy instances loaded with bots or is there good traction from smaller instances? Is there instance brigading going on?
  • Is this an impersonator of seal_of_approval?
  • is this a specific community that spams a lot and I should block it?
  • What moderation rules apply to this instance?

I can't block entire instances myself...

I realize that a lot of these problems have some sort of workaround by drilling down into community details and profiles. Ain't nobody have time for that.

I realize that specific UI solutions could be introduced to tackle each of these problems individually in a user-friendly manner. But we're not there and who knows when we will get there.

view more: next ›

SkyNTP

joined 1 year ago