Eccitaze

This shit right here is why I hate to argue about labels or whether someone is/isn't liberal/leftist/centrist/conservative/whatever. At best, they're an extremely vague, ill-defined, hyper-individualized label that means different things to different people. One person says "I'm a leftist," and they mean it as "I'm a progressive Democrat who supports heavily regulated capitalism, labor unions, LGBT rights, and am pro-choice." Another person says "I'm a leftist," and they mean it as "I'm an anarcho-communist who believes billionaires should forcibly redistribute their wealth, and I don't give a rat's ass about LGBT or minority rights because they're a bourgeoisie distraction from class consciousness."

I don't care about your label, I care about your policies. Those actually tell me something about you.

I personally did read it that way, but I will concede that perhaps I was being uncharitable.

Regardless, I have seen people explicitly questioning whether it was faked elsewhere, and it makes me cringe every time. Talking about this serves literally zero purpose--it makes the left look crazy, any alternative explanations that make Trump look bad fall apart under the barest scrutiny, and it just serves to keep the assassination attempt in peoples' minds. There are literally hundreds of other things to complain about Trump over, talking about this doesn't help.

I think the mod v. user viewpoint is why moderators are so cagey and timid about banning the Usual Suspects. I remember when mods actually followed through and temp banned one of them (iirc it was givesomefucks?) and pretty much all of Lemmy lost their collective shit. If you just read that one thread, you'd have left with the impression that Lemmy mods were a bunch of far-right, protofascist, power tripping assholes hellbent on silencing dissent.

The lesson I took from that episode is that Lemmy has a sizable, vocal minority that either agrees with what the Usual Suspects are saying, or at minimum don't think it's banworthy. They might also think there needs to be a bright line rule violation (and either don't recognize or don't care that every good troll is well-versed in skirting the rules and gently pushing the line, but almost never clearly steps over them).

Okay, but what's the alternative? Trump faked the whole thing in some sort of false flag? He planted a fake gunman to get killed by the secret service, and put two of his close supporters in the hospital in critical condition, for a bump in the polls, when he was already confident that he could beat Biden? Is that really a more plausible explanation than "someone decided to kill Trump over the Epstein files, missed, and was killed"? I absolutely hate the guy, buy I just don't buy it. I can accept "he got hit by a shard of glass instead of a bullet" or "he got grazed elsewhere and it just looks like he was hit in the ear" but claiming the whole thing was faked is just a bridge too far.

We're supposed to be above this type of shaky conspiracy theory level thinking.

In the show just before these were taken, Omni-Man got in a fight with another hero named The Immortal, where The Immortal went for the eyes and tried to blind him by gouging them out. It definitely hurt him, but it didn't work, and Omni-Man ripped The Immortal in half shortly afterwards. (He got better.)

There's a world of difference between not having any profit because you're aggressively reinvesting it into your business, and not having any profit because you spent 16 million to keep the lights on for a service that brought in approximately 5% of what you spent.

I hate it because it's a gigantic waste of time and resources. Big tech has poured hundreds of billions of dollars, caused double digit percentage increases in data center emissions, and fed almost the entire collective output of humanity into these models.

And what did we get for it? We got a toy that is at best mildly amusing, but isn't really all that actually useful for anything; the output provided by generative AI is too unreliable to trust outright and needs to be reviewed and tweaked by hand, so at best you're getting a minor productivity gain, and more likely you're seeing a neutral or negative impact on your productivity (or producing low-quality crap faster and calling it "good enough"). At worst, it's put a massive force multiplier in the hands of the bad actors using disinformation to tear apart modern society for their personal gain. Goldman Sachs released a report in late June where they pointed this out: if tech companies are planning on investing a trillion dollars into AI, what is the trillion dollar problem that AI is going to solve? And so far as I can tell, it seems that the answer to the question is either "it will eliminate millions of jobs and wipe out entire industries without any replacement or safety net, causing untold human suffering" or (more likely to be the case) "there is no trillion dollar problem AI can solve and the entire endeavor is pointless."

Even ignoring the opportunity cost--the money spent could have literally solved the entire homelessness crisis, world hunger, lifted entire countries out of poverty, or otherwise funded solutions for real, intractable, pressing problems for all of humanity--even ignoring that generative AI has single-handedly erased years of progress in reducing our C02 emissions and addressing the climate crisis, even ignoring the logistical difficulty of the scale of build-out being discussed requiring a bigger improvement in our power grid than has been done basically ever, even ignoring the concerns over IP theft and everything else, fundamentally generative AI just isn't worth the hype. It's the crypto craze and NFT craze and metaverse craze (remember Zuckerberg burning 36 billion to make a virtual meeting space featuring avatars without legs?) all over again, except instead of only impacting the suckers who bought into the hype, this time it's getting shoved in everybody's face even if they want nothing to do with it.

But hey, at least it gave us "I Glued My Balls To My Butthole Again." That totally makes the hundred billion investment worth it, right?

Just because something is transformative doesn't mean that it's fair use. There's three other factors, including the nature of the work you copied, the amount of the copyrighted work taken for the use, and the effect on the market. There's no way in hell I believe that anyone can plausibly say with a straight face "I'm taking literally all of the creative works you've ever produced and using them to create a product designed to directly compete with you and put you out of business, and this qualifies as a fair use" and I would be shocked if any judge in any court heard that argument without laughing the poor lawyer making it out of the court.

Good question!

First, that artist will only learn from a few handful of artists instead of every artist's entire field of work all at the same time. They will also eventually develop their own unique style and voice--the art they make will reflect their own views in some fashion, instead of being a poor facsimile of someone else's work.

Second, mimicking the style of other artists is a generally poor way of learning how to draw. Just leaping straight into mimicry doesn't really teach you any of the fundamentals like perspective, color theory, shading, anatomy, etc. Mimicking an artist that draws lots of side profiles of animals in neutral lighting might teach you how to draw a side profile of a rabbit, but you'll be fucked the instant you try to draw that same rabbit from the front, or if you want to draw a rabbit at sunset. There's a reason why artists do so many drawings of random shit like cones casting a shadow, or a mannequin doll doing a ballet pose, and it ain't because they find the subject interesting.

Third, an artist spends anywhere from dozens to hundreds of hours practicing. Even if someone sets out expressly to mimic someone else's style, teaches themselves the fundamentals, it's still months and years of hard work and practice, and a constant cycle of self-improvement, critique, and study. This applies to every artist, regardless of how naturally talented or gifted they are.

Fourth, there's a sort of natural bottleneck in how much art that artist can produce. The quality of a given piece of art scales roughly linearly with the time the artist spends on it, and even artists that specialize in speed painting can only produce maybe a dozen pieces of art a day, and that kind of pace is simply not sustainable for any length of time. So even in the least charitable scenario, where a hypothetical person explicitly sets out to mimic a popular artist's style in order to leech off their success, it's extremely difficult for the mimic to produce enough output to truly threaten their victim's livelihood. In comparison, an AI can churn out dozens or hundreds of images in a day, easily drowning out the artist's output.

And one last, very important point: artists who trace other people's artwork and upload the traced art as their own are almost universally reviled in the art community. Getting caught tracing art is an almost guaranteed way to get yourself blacklisted from every art community and banned from every major art website I know of, especially if you're claiming it's your own original work. The only way it's even mildly acceptable is if the tracer explicitly says "this is traced artwork for practice, here's a link to the original piece, the artist gave full permission for me to post this." Every other creative community writing and music takes a similarly dim views of plagiarism, though it's much harder to prove outright than with art. Given this, why should the art community treat someone differently just because they laundered their plagiarism with some vector multiplication?

But hey, now they can claim that not picking Shapiro was antisemitic! 🙄

Never mind the tiki torches and chants of "Jews will not replace us" in the distance...

The Phoenix Wright trilogy--the first three original GBA games/DS re-releases. They set up and develop so many arcs that pay off both within each game and across the entire trilogy. I would even go so far as to say that Phoenix Wright 3 is one of the best visual novel games of all time.

The used game market is still insane, I'm seeing $20-30 for even shit-tier, obscure, normally worthless nes games. If you bought the console while it was new it's still worth keeping, but absolutely just get a flash cart instead of subjecting yourself to the price gouging retro market.