It was, I’m pretty ace but still enjoy lewd humor for whatever reason.

More of a bean-licker.

Non sequitur and you ain’t cute.

So reactionary, you going to start complaining about loud blue haired feminists next? Apparently it is too much to acknowledge those who can’t advocate for themselves, but perfectly fine to participate in their genocide.

The fact that you can’t detect sarcasm doesn’t make you special (looking at all the down votes that person got).

We could be even more proactive by banning these disease incubators.

The problem isn’t that AirBnB gets a cut, the problem is that they make such a process more efficient and accessible. Property is a finite resource, especially when talking about a specific area like a city. We don’t want to turn cities into amusement parks that the workers have to commute an hour to get to, even if that’s what is the most profitable. Housing should be affordable and available for the people who actually use and make the city run daily.

Link to studies please.

Nobody is suggesting we feed cats tofu and spinach. The naturalistic argument and yelling “We don’t know!” a bunch really only works if you are proposing we feed cats only raw meat from fresh kills, what they would eat in the wild. Pet food isn’t a pet’s natural diet, vegan or not, and it all has to be fortified.

I don’t believe in such a naturalistic argument though. Humans are able (key word, able, most don’t) eat healthier with modern diets. Why would we assume we can’t develop food that is just as healthy or even healthier than an animal’s natural diet?

When you eat animals you give the market a financial incentive to breed and slaughter more animals, who inevitably have to eat a bunch of plants to grow. It’s not that you eating a burger kills a cow, but you eating a burger helps make it financially sound and socially acceptable to murder cows for burgers.

This is bullshit because pet food exists where the proteins are denatured because some animals have serious allergies. Animals can build the proteins they need from the constituent parts. There are surely proteins unique to cats, where do you think they get them, cannibalism? Are you saying veterinarians recommending such products are harming animals?

Also who said I have a cat companion, even if you were 100% correct about what constitutes neglect it would not apply to me. But you’re obviously not engaging in good faith and just want someone to paint as a monster. What’s really monstrous is we have an industry that brutally harvests billions of sentient creatures every year just to feed ourselves and other animals.

Obligate carnivores in nature. Why do you care if a cat is fed with fortified plant bits vs fortified animal bits? Neither product exists in nature and the cat can live a healthy life on both. Also breeding cats to be pets is completely unnatural, so why are you fine with that?

Once I started using Lemmy I never touched Reddit again. So I guess Lemmy.

YES

At least if we go off the Lemmy definition. I don’t self identify.

This could be a huge money save. Might cost the city less if they simply bisect pedestrians in police chases instead of paralysing them from the waist down.

I didn’t think it was a choreographed publicity stunt. I just know Altman has used AI fear in the past to keep people from asking rational questions like “What can this actually do?” He obviously stands to gain from people thinking they are on the verge of agi. And someone looking for a new job in the field also has to gain from it.

As for the software thing, if it’s done by someone it won’t be openai and megacorporations following in its footsteps. They seem insistent at throwing more data (of diminishing quality) and more compute (an impractical amount) at the same style of models hoping they’ll reach some kind of tipping point.

This fear mongering is just beneficial to Altman. If his product is powerful enough to be a threat to humanity then it is also powerful enough to be capable of many useful things, things it has not proven itself to be capable of. Ironically spreading fear about its capabilities will likely raise investment, so if you actually are afraid of openai somehow arriving at agi that is dangerous then you should really be trying to convince people of its lack of real utility.

You’re kinda being toxic right now by purposefully misconstruing what I said so you can hit me with a cheap comeback.

Nobody is forced with a gun to play a game with a toxic community either, does that mean it’s not worth complaining about? Perhaps the article should mention the supposed tradeoffs required to police such a community. I say supposed because I’ve played far less toxic games than Vallorant and League that don’t require such invasive software. Perhaps Riot should do some introspection and ask why the games they make foster such bad behavior instead of harming nontoxic players with their policing methods.

It’s relevant because the article acts like strictness is a unimodal thing. Riot decides how far they want to push it and some people will fall on one side and believe chat is overly sanitized while others will fall on the opposite side and believe that chat is overly toxic.

This makes it sound like the only reason someone could take issue with Riot being zealous with their policing is because that person wants to see these toxic behaviors in their game. The article quickly mentions hardware bans like they are magic, even though something like harder to spoof hardware is one of the reasons Riot would give for requiring invasive software.

And similar to how I won’t accept a game requiring such invasive measures I also won’t accept an article glossing over these things. Just like there are many players who see no problem with toxic behavior there are also many players who don’t see any problem with Riot’s measures or are simply uninformed, and the article should be more informative.

I’m all for banning toxic players and cheaters, but the fact that they make you install a rootkit on your system to enable this is too much.