They already have started doing that

Christian tradition, sure, but the Bible doesn’t have much to say about nipples so any specific rule regarding them seems to be more of an inference than a command.

That’s pretty clearly just a disclaimer meant to shield them from legal repercussions. They know people aren’t going to do that.

So they only forced everyone into their ecosystem for seven years and once they cornered their market they gave back the illusion of choice? That’s cool I guess but that’s explicitly the opposite of what I mean when I say freedom of choice, open source, DRM free, etc.

Yeah this guy is on some Apple fanboy shit if he thinks iTunes was drm free. Their shitty design for iTunes and decision to force you to use it despite it making the experience of listening to music much worse is the primary reason an ipod is the only Apple device I’ve ever owned. Freedom of choice and Apple have never mixed. That’s such a weird angle to take when describing them.

I think pre post-apocalypse is just the apocalypse. If you read the news these days that sounds like a pretty accurate description of the time we’re living in. We’re all just pretending it hasn’t started yet.

Hey now that’s not fair. AI can randomize your music playlists, summarize an email, write terrible code, steal others work, and completely invade your privacy.

What’s that? Oh, I guess you’re right, we could do all that stuff already.

Every once in a while they get faced with a line on a chart somewhere so unbelievably vertical that they have no choice but to look beyond next quarter. Power consumption going 10x in 2 years is one of those times.

Obviously the people who would benefit most from this technology would prefer a doctor and pharmacy to be involved as well. The point is that personal preference doesn’t really mean much when the preferred option is inaccessible and the alternative is death or a dramatically reduced quality of life. You do the best with what you have.

Theoretically that’s true. Can you tell techbros and the media to shut up about AI until it happens though?

reddit is not the entire internet. Your inability to find info without using Google to search reddit posts says more about your habits than it does the state of the internet.

I don’t think anything of the sort. I found that I didn’t enjoy my time on the platform so I don’t use it anymore. That simple evaluation had more to do with my decision to stop using it than any moral issues I could cite, of which there are many.

It’s pretty easy to be in the office and not working. Especially with all those different places to get lost. I really doubt that works out the way they want it to

Photography is capturing something real in the physical world. Even if the action can be boiled down to “push a button” the photographer needs to have at least some presence where the real event is taking place.

AI art is not a depiction of a real event and requires no physical presence. It’s also not being brought to life by the person taking credit for it. That’s not to say AI generated images can’t be cool or useful but I don’t think they are art. If your definition of art is loose enough to apply to AI generated images then the I think the artist credit should belong to the AI itself or the team that wrote the software, not the person typing in prompts.

They didn’t skip those steps. The market just ignored the fact that they’ve been stepping through those options for the last 30 years because that’s what the market as a whole has been doing. As cliche and annoying as it sounds, this is exactly what late stage capitalism looks like. Once growth through sales becomes difficult, usually from approaching monopolistic size in a market, they only have two options left. They can either cut corners and headcount to save on operational expenses or they can decrease revenue growth. Considering the fact that the central thesis of our economy is the idea that infinite growth is not only possible but the only valid pursuit of any corporation it’s easy to guess what they’re going to do when faced with declining sales or any other detriment to growth.

What does that even mean? Clearly you and I remember it at minimum. What would you expect to be done differently?

Gotta make that line go up somehow

How many beans have you harvested? How many bushels of wheat have you grown? None, damn I guess that means we all have to starve to death.

You’re obviously allowed to care and to express that. I hope you don’t hear me saying that I think you’re dumb or anything like that. In fact it’s pretty much the exact opposite. Most of the time when I see people complain about downvotes they’re trolls upset that it hampers their ability to be a troll but you seem like a reasonable person so I am simply seeking to better understand your perspective.

To put it another way I agree with your first sentence but I don’t generally feel like visible downvotes prevents that from happening. I actually think downvotes function to encourage good discussion more often than not. That isn’t true in all cases but it seems easier to be discouraged or get the wrong idea about prevailing sentiments if the dumb comments are just sitting there next to the good comments with no indication that a majority of other users also think they’re dumb.

I mean it was mostly a joke but it’s also semi serious. You seem capable of disagreement without it bothering you much so I don’t get why the number next to a comment is different. Yeah some people use it in a dumb way but that’s true of pretty much everything.