• 3 Posts
  • 41 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 5th, 2023

help-circle

  • Yeah it was odd to read that description being presented as an oddity - that sounds like most households I know. If you have a wife, kids, or roommate and don’t enjoy being holed up in your own room the whole time you play (and those sharing your house don’t just want to watch you game all night) then in house streaming is a huge boon.

    I PC game, but most of my gaming is done on the couch, streamed onto my phone. I’ve been very tempted to buy a dedicated streaming device lately to avoid draining my phone battery while playing





  • Dissappear? No, of course not

    Fall out of repair, and be unable to be repaired effectively without tools, resources, or knowledge that are no longer accessible?

    Abso-fucking-lutely

    Take a deep sea oil rig. How long do you think it’ll be operational without maintenance with all that sea water? After not too long you won’t be able to repair the damage without serious industrial capabilities, and that’s assuming you even know how to fix it.

    Really even as relatively little as a few decades of total chaos and disorganization would be enough to make crawling back really hard. A century and more and it really could be impossible, or at least improbable - especially given that the humanity that comes out of the other end of the crisis is the same one that got us into it. So the remaining pieces of major valuable infrastructure left will probably get wrecked as the survivors fight over them



  • True, but Its 100% possible for us to get knocked back into the iron age, and if that happens, there’s a very real chance we won’t be able to climb up again.

    Easy to access sources of a lot of the resources needed to rebuild a modern civilization are gone, the only reason we can get to the remaining deposits is because we already have the advanced equipment to extract it. It’s entirely possible that if we get knocked back down the tech ladder, we may never climb back up again



  • The way it sounds right now is “AI generated faces don’t have all these artifacts 99% of the time” (I’m paraphrasing A LOT, but you get what I mean.)

    The only way it sounds like that is if you don’t read the article at all and draw all your conclusions from just reading the title.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure many do just that, but that’s not the fault of the study. They clearly state their method for selecting (or “cherry picking”) images


  • I don’t know why people (not saying you, more directed at the top commenter) keep acting like cherry picking AI images in these studies invalidate the results - cherry picking is how you use AI image generation tools, that’s why most will (or can) generate several at once so you can pick the best one. If a malicious actor was trying to fool people, of course they’d use the most “real” looking ones, instead of just the first to generate

    Frankly the studies would be useless if they didn’t cherry pick, because it wouldn’t line up with real world usage










  • bitsplease@lemmy.mlto196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneRule
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s going to be basically impossible impossible to address this. You’ve asked incredibly broad questions and I’m typing on my phone with arthritic thumbs. Anything I miss or can’t exhaustively lay out convincingly you’ll just say “well what about that thing”.

    Well, yeah - when you’re advocating for a very radical change in societal structure, with potential downsides ranging as far as actual genocide, I feel like it’d be irresponsible to not point out flaws perceived in the proposed structure (or - lack of structure - as the case may be). You’ll forgive me for not just taking your word when you say “we’ve got it figure out bro”.

    why if you want detailed answers you can really only find them in books

    The trouble with reading an argument in a book is that it’s a one way conversation. It’s easy to present an idea in a way that seems totally sensible, when you’re the only voice speaking. I don’t doubt that you’ve ready many anarchic books that make sense when you read them, but the fact that you and others are having trouble distilling those arguments in a comprehensive fashion here shows that the arguments made in those books were probably not as compelling as you perceived them to be when you read them, but were just presented well (likely with a bit of confirmation bias sprinkled in).

    I would say I’m not sure why you seem to think centralisation leads to superior manufacturing capabilities or agility in decision making

    History and modern economics? Can you point to a modern nation that is heavily decentralized with a greater industrial base than it’s centralized peers such as China and the US? As for decision making, I’ll grant you that on small scales a lack of centralization works in your favor. Trying to get 100 people to decide on something is a lot easier than 100 million, but when dealing with a military or economic threat from a centralized power, 1 million separate decisions made by groups of 100 don’t actually help.

    It’s not as simple as big military beats small military, look how badly the usa failed in its various wars since ww2

    True, though guerilla warfare certainly wouldn’t be unique to anarchism. And while I agree the USA has failed in pretty much all of it’s military goals since WW2, I’d point out that the targets of those military campaigns were completely decimated by the time they withdrew. Small comfort to your anarchic society that they weren’t completely conquered when every village has been drone striked into rubble.

    I’d also point out that the failings of the US military since WW2 has infinitely more to do with the fact that none of our wars have actually had meaningful objectives. During the cold war, each one had the dubious unofficial objective of “embarrass the SU”, the wars in the middle east were fought for purely economic reasons (whatever might have been stated publicly), which is a goal they did actually succeed in.

    As to not having an exact answer for every conceivable problem: it’s not like our society has one either. It’s not designed, we’re making this shit up and it is failing catastrophically to address challenges like power and wealth concentration due to technology, ecosystem collapse (we are in a mass extinction ffs), and climate change. Further it almost ended the world several times over during the cold war!

    I don’t disagree with this at all - but the fact that the current systems aren’t working well doesn’t mean we should just ignore problems in proposed alternatives.And ultimately i don’t see how implementing anarchism actually fixes any of the problems you describe, given that all the problems you describe are fundamentally rooted in the flaws of human nature.

    Hell, Climate Change in particular is one that would be basically impossible to actually solve in an Anarchic society. Say I wanted to build a super-polluting factory in our anarchic society, I go out where there aren’t any people currently living, use my own resources to build said factory, and start polluting. Whose to say I can’t? Who would even know what I’m polluting? I don’t disagree that our current society is fucked - but just because the current system is broken, doesn’t mean we should toss it out for a half-baked one just because it’s different.