Correctamundo!

Not yet

That’s an odd way to ask for clarity when you’re looking for help

Squeaker, Fire-belly, Poison Dart, Ghost, Parsley

That’s crazy, how can somebody not know what brand of laptop they…

HOLY SHIT ME TOO

I think the answer depends on how you define art.

Like, the artist in me wants to have a discussion about the appeal of abstraction versus impressionism, and whether you should compromise your artistic vision for the sake of commercial success.

The pessimist in me says that the most popular physical art is probably Pokemon trading cards and other merch.

“Physical Art” is a pretty broad category because there’s still a million mediums you can choose from. Would making prints of digital art count as physical art? That might be a question for the philosophers.

Anyway, if you’re looking to break into the scene then you should probably visit some craft fairs / galleries / tourist traps and see what they’re selling. Talk to the artists in the medium you want to explore.

Yeah, I think these goofy names are all based on trends. There’s probably some overlap between the people who would name their kids without regards for their kids’ feelings, and the people who would jump on some bandwagon or claim it as their own.

A distressingly common one I’ve been seeing is “Nevaeh” which is “Heaven” spelled backwards. If you’re devout enough to name your kid after the pearly gates though, you’d think you’d realize that backwards heaven is likely hell

Mom’s lasagna is the best. It’s the benchmark against which I compare any other lasagna.

She used to make a really great pizza too, but geez, it’s probably been decades since she made one

We’re not Italian, I guess I’m just nostalgic for the food of my youth

I had a kid at a summer camp where I was teaching have an unusual one maybe 5-6 years ago.

I’m going through the roll call, and there’s a kid who’s first name was listed as ABCDE. I think that’s pretty weird, so I assume it’s an error like somebody made a mistake on the intake form or the database garbled something.

So I skip over that one, and at the end I ask if I miss anyone. A girl puts up her hand so I ask for her name and she pronounces it like “Ab-siddy”

I realize they’re the same kid, and that her parents fucked her. I think she knew what was up and was kind of ashamed. Poor kid, I didn’t ask her to spell it

This might count as “unusual” punishment, but imo it’s far less cruel than what’s usually on the table on death row

Segue, what makes you more comfortable for B?

This 🌕🌕🌑🌑🌑🌑
Or
That 🌕🌑🌑🌕🌑🌑

My first read I missed that the you were spinning the chamber between shots. I was thinking people pick B assuming its the first one and then get fucked the second way

Anyway, I think I’d go with C. If it’s going to happen, it’s going to happen, and I didn’t get to death row by not believing in instant gratification

If you’re a roller coaster enthusiast, you might get a kick out of the Euthanasia Coaster, or as I like to call it The Sui-Slide

Obligatory XKCD

A common refrain I’m seeing in this post is that if there’s something wrong with the model you can just retrain it. There’s a couple problems with that assumption.

The state of the technology actually makes training a model somewhere between difficult or opaque. And what I mean by this is that in order to train a model you need to give it data. A lot of data. An amount of data that a single person frankly either doesn’t have access to or has no simple way to generate. And even then, there’s no way to be sure how the model performs until after the training completes, so even if you’ve collected all that data you won’t know it’s an improvement.

But for the sake of a hypothetical let’s ignore the current state of the technology and imagine that wasn’t a problem.

If an AI representative votes for me, and it gets that vote wrong, I won’t know about it until after it has voted for me. And by then it’s too late - I’ve already voted against my interest.

Also it seems that your position is that these AI reps are for people who care enough about politics to care, but don’t care enough to do. I don’t know that those people would ever confirm that their model is actually voting in their favour. If they don’t care enough to vote, then they don’t care enough to confirm their votes either.

The most damning thing about using AI for policy though - AI is NOT a decision making tool. Ask anybody who actually works on AI. It might fool the people who use it, and the people who sell it to you will tell you anything to make an extra dollar. AI is just a formula that spits out words instead of numbers. Sometimes it strings together a cohesive sentence and sometimes it hallucinates. There isn’t any Intelligence happening under the machine, it’s all Artificial.

AI is essentially autocomplete on steroids. It has no capacity to reason or argue, it just says what it’s trained for you to expect. It’s not a thinking machine and I sincerely doubt it ever will be

Zombii looks like my void. Then again, I suppose most voids look like my void

Can you tell me more about gall fruit? I’ve never heard of it, but I guess it must be good for cats if you put it in their toys

Is the idea here direct democracy, but instead of personally voting on each issue, you have a digital assistant cast your ballot?

I propose “direct technocracy” as the term. I also welcome the boom in dystopic cyberpunk media if this gets considered.

Ultimately, I think the problem would be that people are going to think even less about politics if they could abstract it away. It might seem counterintuitive since Lemmy is full of politics, but we’re hardly representative of the larger demographic and apathy rules the political landscape.

There’s also a bunch of issues with making sure that your AI would actually respect your wishes and vote accordingly. It sounds like we’re thinking of a hypothetical AI that’s easier to tune and doesn’t have the problems of today’s AI. But if we’re talking hypotheticals that have somehow fixed implementation problems, then I’d rather have a good, safe, and secure way to just vote online.

I’m not sure if this question is positing that women aren’t stimulated by porn visually, or if it’s using porn as an example of something to be stimulated visually by.

My wife likes cartoons and has a diploma in animation. Her class was like 80% female. Animation is pretty much by definition visual stimulation.

But if we’re talking exclusively about eroticism, there’s female directors making porn for the female eye too. IMO it relies less on the gonzo fake shit and tropes of mainstream porn too, so it might actually be healthier to consume (note: not a sexologist)

Either way, I’m not sure that this divide between men and women exists where you think it does

I agree that the behavior of these companies to hook their users using the darkest psychological patterns is disgusting. It doesn’t become any less disgusting once the user turns 17 though, and no framework is in place to prevent those teens from falling prey once they gain access.

Even if we all agree that a ban is warranted, my stance is that a ban alone isn’t enough. It needs to be accompanied by education and harm reduction.

And it needs to be honest, scientific, and good-faith education. We don’t need another DARE program demonizing something because misinformation can be more harmful than failure to educate

How does someone advance to “rationally thinking” without receiving education?

I don’t disagree that habits picked up in childhood are more difficult to break. But I don’t think it’s a problem exclusively for children either.

Many of us are growing up with parents and grandparents with brainrot. And sure, maybe they would have been more susceptible as kids if the technology existed then. But we all would be better off with decent digital and media literacy.

Plus, who’s giving the kids these devices anyway? It’s usually the parents - who have been raised not to talk to strangers- giving their kids unfettered access to all the strangers of the world

I’m still not an expert, but I like to speculate and dream of a better world

I have no disagreement with point 1, I’ve heard that before. But gosh, it’s a tough pill to swallow when you’re not food secure. I think maybe it’s easier for people to accept “there isn’t enough food” than “there is food, but I can’t have any.”

Point 2: I imagine we’d probably grow different food there. I suppose there might be some concern for biodiversity loss, but if we were suddenly gifted a ton of arable land to grow food on we could probably get better variety.

Point 3 is a tough one, it’s something I haven’t really considered before. However, I suppose that raising animals for fertilizer could potentially be more humane and lower impact than raising animals for flesh. For instance, you’re no longer incentivized to slaughter the animals at a young age, and older animals might actually have a lower caloric requirement. Plus you wouldn’t need to raise the mega polluters like cows, you just want whatever gives good fertilizer.

I don’t think a ban is coming at the issue from the right angle. Social media misuse is fundamentally a problem of addiction, and we have a checkered past of causing harm when banning things. For a historical analogue, look at the Prohibition era of the United States.

Ultimately, bans for these things don’t work because people will get around it anyway. And that’s exactly when dangerous things happen. Using the Prohibition example again, people poisoned themselves trying to make illegal hooch because they were determined to drink anyway.

I think education is the answer. And I mean honestly, isn’t education always the answer? But you’ve got to educate your kids about the content they’re using. We’ve got to educate the parents about the dangerousness of unlimited access to screens. If people don’t understand the danger, then they don’t recognize the danger, and suddenly they’ve stumbled on danger.

I’m sure everyone has heard a story about a straight-laced kid who grew up with strict parents, and then at the first opportunity to party in college goes on a bender to destroy their life. Those kids’ parents really did them a disservice by not preparing them for reality. If their only education on drugs and alcohol is “don’t do them,” then the child isn’t really aware of the risks. They just see that everyone else is doing them and having fun, and then they go off the deep end before they realize how bad things are getting.

Social media’s the same thing. The day your kid turns seventeen they’ll have every chance to succumb to brainrot on their own volition. Without being informed of how or why that happens, there’s nothing stopping someone from falling into any internet rabbithole.