Lol when I was reading the first bit of your comment, I wondered "hmm, does this person also watch Technology Connections"?
He's also where I get all my knowledge of light bulbs from. He makes it all so fascinating.
CoderKat
joined 2 years ago
If it's stable diffusion img2img, then totally, this is a misunderstanding of how that works. It usually only looks at things like the borders or depth. The text based prompt that the user provides is otherwise everything.
That said, these kinds of AI are absolutely still biased. If you tell the AI to generate a photo of a professor, it will likely generate an old white dude 90% of the time. The models are very biased by their training data, which often reflects society's biases (though really more a subset of society that created whatever training data the model used).
Some AI actually does try to counter bias a bit by injecting details to your prompt if you don't mention them. Eg, if you just say "photo of a professor", it might randomly change your prompt to "photo of a female professor" or "photo of a black professor", which I think is a great way to tackle this bias. I'm not sure how widespread this approach is or how effective this prompt manipulation is.
Yeah, no news (as in, from the moment Musk acquired it) would have made me continue to casually use Twitter. But the bad news that came out of Twitter quickly made me delete my account and eventually even make an active effort not to even click a twitter link (and encourage others to do the same). No way "all publicity is good publicity" applies to Twitter.
Agreed. Personally, all I wanna do is take the vast majority of their money and redistribute it to society. They can keep a few million to fuck off with. I don't really care about them beyond that. They largely only have power imbalance because of their money. I don't think anyone should be a billionaire (or frankly more than about $10M USD or so -- which is currently enough to comfortably live your life without having to work, yet isn't utterly crazy).
Once they no longer are so rich, why would I care about them anymore? I'm not one to try and get revenge or anything, and I think that's a harmful way of thinking. I just want society to suck less and fixing the massive wealth imbalance is a big part of that.
If we were in a position where "eat the rich" could be taken literally, then "seize their current and future wealth" is just as achievable.
Blockchain 🤮
I know it's wrong, but there's something about the forbiddenness of JS that makes it sexy.
Oh, baby, you wanna do what with my strings?
Jokes aside, Scala or Haskell, hands down. Those are sexy languages that make gorgeous code.
Seriously, who are these people commenting on CBC articles? I don't usually even look at the comments anymore, simply because any time I did, they were full of the shittiest, dumbest assholes I've ever seen. I'm embarrassed to even share a country with people who comment on CBC articles.
By comparison, comments on Reddit and Lemmy are usually okay. Not good by any means (especially in the right leaning mess that was r/Canada), but miles better than CBC's comments (which I can only assume are completely unmoderated).
They definitely wouldn't. But if push came to a shove, I wonder if they'd really be able to stop them? I'm not really clear on the finer legal points. But I know that for the American Civil War, the south all left the federal government (which presumably would have made it easier to pass any bills regarding the south) and they also basically forced armed conflict (both by attacking first and by seizing federal bases).
I'm not sure if a single state leaving would have the same effect, especially with how divided American politicians are. I don't fully understand if anything actually needs to be voted on (I do know that the American Civil War didn't formally declare war), but if anything had to be, it's hard to picture even a single GOPer doing anything (nor enough Democrats to pass anything -- never mind that in the Senate, the fillibuster means that if the GOP refuses to vote, that's the end of things).
So it's a pretty big worry, in my mind. With all the shit states like Florida have done, I wouldn't put it past them to try and secede. And no matter what, there's no way that would end well. Either things will get a lot worse for any Floridans that aren't cis, straight, and white, or there'll be a war that costs a lot of lives. It's a lose-lose for any decent person. Only fascists stand to gain and they have power in Florida.
- I feel like this one is an issue either way. Even if it doesn't take out the entire community, taking out the largest community is pretty impactful. It worries me that the fediverse feels so fragile.
- I think that case is a perfectly valid one to create a new community over. I'm not saying there should never be duplicates, just that we shouldn't have them without a reason.
- Yeaaaah, I think defederation should be handled better and admins need more granular options so that they don't have to defederate except in the most extreme cases. The fact that some of the biggest instances can't be seen by some other instances (or at least one other) is weird and worrisome.
- I don't think this would be a reason to avoid smaller instances, but admittedly people will generally create communities on their instance. I don't think you even can create a community on another instance? You have to have someone on that instance create it and set you as a mod.
I agree with you on those special weapons. I dunno why the heck they made those so rare or expensive while also not being that durable. I don't find it an issue for most normal weapons, though, especially with the fuse mechanic in TotK. I like how it forces me to vary things up and allows for regular treasure chests or drops to actually give you something you can use (even if it's basically like a short lasting consumable).
ITT: people happy that Canadians won't see local news as often, just because they perceive this as hurting Facebook.
You can hate Facebook and understand that this is a shitty law. To be fair, if you aren't in the loop on what the law is, it's easy to accidentally think it's a reasonable law. When I first heard of it, I assumed it was just preventing companies from stealing articles and keeping news sites from getting clicks. After all, that's a real problem and a totally reasonable solution.
But nope, the law actually prohibits linking to a news site without having an agreement to pay them. Yes, linking. I really hope it's obvious how dumb such a law is. They wrote the law to only apply to super big corporations. Otherwise this post would have had to pay Global because you linked to it. Similarly, copying any part of the article in any amount also needs to pay them. Even the headline and tagline that Lemmy shows. It's hypocritical that anyone cheers this on when this very post wouldn't comply with the law.