To summarize: the video opens on a series of games, each one progressively older, overlaid with a review of that game from the time it came out praising it as the best graphical fidelity of its time. Basically, they’re saying “Yes, graphics got better, but we always seem to conclude that they’re the best they will ever be”
I’ll be honest, for a minute I thought it was not a flaw but referring to “Monday Me, on Monday” which is a concept I can relate to
I love this idea. Unfortunately, I think it’s just a slightly unnatural vocal performance. Even though AI can perfectly replicate voices tonally, they can’t truly generate the same cadence and inflections, or sometimes even get close without a good deal of human assistance. I suspect this will change over time. As with ChatGPT, we’ll be looking to AI to solve the problem of AI mimicking humans too well.
For most people, it doesn’t matter unless it’s happening near them. Source: Texan.
No my eyesight is fine, what are you on about?
Maybe an un-based take, but these questions do have ambiguous answers, and I don’t know if we should expect a machine to give an answer without nuance. If you just want the AI to say yes or no, ask something like, “Was Hitler bad?” or “Is slavery unethical?” and you will much more likely get straightforward answers.
Not sure if it counts as a first day, but a third interview had me gone. I was quite late and they told me I was out of the running. Reasonable enough, but the company was in the middle of a move, so this interview was in a different location across town from the first two, and the only indication of where it was taking place was a tiny sign stuck in the ground. I must have circled the parking lot 10 times.
It was for the best because I later learned the work conditions there were rotten.
Seems like a good deal if it proactively convinces bad actors to stop from reaching out
I could be misremembering and I’m not going to look it up right now, but I believe Payday 2 lost to corpo greed long ago when they added a bunch of microtransactions. There was also something about the original devs being screwed over if memory serves.
Sounds like you don’t need it!
The problem is that multiple unrelated communities also saw a surge of old memes when the original community blew up
In the middle of a move, I hope to homelab a setup at my new location but currently a newb (essentially). Can’t use this yet but upvoting for coolness.
I feel like he addresses this quite well in the conclusion. In regards to cars, “this is not a new phenomenon” and admits to his reliance on salesmen and mechanics.
Ultimately, he’s asking that the people who make decisions about how our world is shaped have some knowledge about the things that are going to shape the world. And that essential issue is still unaddressed. Remind me, how many years ago was it that US Congress was asking Google why the bad articles show up when you search their name?
Oh, and our car-centric society in the US largely sucks. That may or may not have anything to do with our general understanding of a motor, but maybe it’s worth considering how much thought has really gone into the implications of these massively affecting technologies.
Honestly, a lot of them bring up necessary questions. AI being developed so quickly means a lot of questions got pushed off until later.
Most of the technology subs I followed have migrated to some degree, but I’ve noticed a lot of “normie” subs are still stuck. For me in particular, r/Writing prompts, r/nosleep, and r/YoutubeHaikus are sorely missed.
I think the personal historical context between the two parties is the important part here. Reading the article, I get the impression that this was not the first instance of these two conducting business in this way.
If the buyer has previous experience with the seller responding to a contract with a thumbs up and then processing to fulfill that contact, why wouldn’t they interpret that as acceptance in this case?
To use your own analogy, it would be like a couple who regularly texts 🍌🍆🥒🌭🍑🌋💧🏔️ - 👍 to indicate sexy times having one party reinterpret that meaning suddenly when it’s convenient for them.
Threads is new - unless you meet someone who for some reason only has a threads account, just talk to them elsewhere.
Otherwise, why is it the Fediverse user who has to get the threads account? Tell your people to make an account elsewhere. If you are conscientiously avoiding threads, you’re probably the only one in the relationship with a principle boundary to cross in this situation.
I’ve been reading up on this very thing today. Let me put it to you in paraphrase as I heard it. What we have to lose is a truly federated network - it has happened before, and it can happen again. Facebook, when faced with an app that most users preferred, chose to buy it, and now Instagram is just as big a project concern as the rest of Meta.
You can’t buy a federated network, but you sure can improve on it, just as Google did with XMPP in days of yore. Once a federated chat protocol much as we’re on a federated social network, Google introduced Google Talk in 05, and federated it via XMPP in 06. They introduced a variety of features and QOL over the years, and being as big as they were, they held a vast majority of the users across all XMPP platforms.
Then, in 2013, they announced that Google Talk would be phased out and as a result, a huge chunk of the federated community would be walled. All of a sudden, a thriving federated community was mostly just Google.
People join just to talk to their friends, and to make friends; if most of those people went to Google for their features and most of their friends were there too, there was no big loss for them. It’d be like if Reddit used to be an instance all on its own and then suddenly decided to unfederate completely.
That’s not to say that all this will happen with Meta, but I guarantee that is their goal.
I think the difference is that when you pay discord, they stop advertising to you.