The virgin Bao Fan vs the chad Shumai Enjoyer

(I’m sorry)

Please do not associate my beloved charcuterie with this behavior 😔🙏

You’re not alone. Nuance is just harder to convey, takes more effort to post something nuanced. And so people do it less, myself included. But I think truthfully that many people are not so stuck in one or the other circlejerks. It’s lovely to see people in this thread who are annoyed by both.

Trying to cram AI into everything regardless of suitability is indeed bad. However, that does not justify black-and-white opinions. It explains them, but it doesn’t justify them.

Fully agreed, this is a very clever post and people are just getting antsy about it because it threatens their black-and-white AI opinions

Yeah I love Lemmy and I love that people aren’t afraid to be extreme on here but sometimes it’s exhausting that it’s just so omnipresent. It’s like there’s a whole lifestyle associated with Lemmy. And some people really take it too far. I think there’s a balance to be struck between being full of normies vs being all extreme all the time.

Idunno if it counts as ageism when they’re talking about stupid behavior among people with minds that are factually, biologically, not finished developing. Same reason it isn’t ageist to say “ten year olds are not allowed to drive cars because they aren’t smart enough to do it responsibly”

As much as Trump sucks, I would be shocked if he pardons Combs. It’s not like child rapists have some sort of brotherhood pact, and despite what many people want to believe, MAGA does indeed hate pedophiles too, they just have a blind spot for Trump. That blind spot is largely helped by the fact Trump is white. MAGA is pretty united on Combs being a child molester, because it doesn’t threaten their worldview for a rich black man to be evil. Trump pardoning Combs would just make it too easy to connect the dots. And again, Trump doesn’t give a shit about anyone but himself. The only way Combs gets a pardon is if he has some sort of incriminating Trump videos, which isn’t entirely impossible, but doesn’t strike me as likely either.

Maybe I’m just defensive because I’m such a contrarian, but I’m so sick of whatever is trending on Tiktok dictating the way people see their lives.

One month nobody ever gives a shit about “golden retriever boyfriends”, then suddenly that’s what everyone is looking for - when it’s trending on Tiktok.

Nobody ever bothered about “main character energy”, then suddenly it’s their prerogative to acquire it - as soon as it’s trending on Tiktok.

And so a friend that maybe you would have previously called free-thinking, or able to see things from multiple sides, or a friend who is honest with you even when it isn’t what you want to hear - now suddenly this all is filtered through the lens of “the contrarian friend”.

It’s incredible how none of us ever thought we had contrarian friends until Tiktok started talking about it, none of us ever thought about how Bob down the street has main character energy until Tiktok started talking about it.

My god, people, think for yourselves. It’s great to learn new ideas and concepts and then try to see how they apply to your life, but does everyone need to learn the same homogenous simple concept all at once and shoehorn everything into it?

No, we don’t all have contrarian friends, no, it’s not driving everyone crazy. People are just forcing themselves to find examples of it to talk about it on Tiktok because that’s what’s popular on Tiktok right now. People like these are the reason the term sheeple was invented.

Do you live in LV? I was there just two weeks ago, I found it just as crowded and bustling as it has been in all my many other visits to the Strip. It was absolutely crowded, not dead anywhere. Maybe the difference is something more subtle that only a local would recognize. But from my perspective I noticed nothing strange.

“i do not give a single fuck” implies an additive identity fuck, and “I don’t give two fucks” implies a multiplicative identity fuck. That’s a start at least!

Noobie mistake, you need to say you learned it from your nonna

Yeah I think the difficulty of relating to the religious side is what made that portion of the book tough for me, especially since I really related with child Stephen. I even remember writing down my name, city, country, “the world”, “the universe” on one of my assignments once in elementary school, and doing the thing of covering and uncovering my ears, so it just felt unbelievably similar up until he went all religious. Of course he became more relatable again afterwards. My favorite quote from Portrait was “he wanted to meet in the real world the unsubstantial image which his soul so constantly beheld”. Not only relatable, but wonderfully and succinctly put.

I’ve been anxiously awaiting a good time to read Ulysses, probably will wait until I finish my current book with my reading buddy and go into it together with them. I only know it’s famous difficulty, I had no idea that Stephen would be in it. I’ve always wanted to write something esoteric and convention-breaking myself, but I don’t think I really have the chops for it - from what little I know of Ulysses, I suspect it may be very close to some of these fantasy projects I’ve envisioned, and I look forward to it for that. I read a smidge of Finnegan’s Wake and that one I expect to be more of just a pure puzzle, maybe academically interesting, but I’ll be pleasantly surprised if it is also artistically stirring. From Stephen’s dialogue about art, I have no doubt now that that was Joyce’s intent, at least.

I think with Dubliners it was the incredible minimalism of the stories. They felt so ultra perfectly condensed, like no word was superfluous. And then even with that right compression, or maybe because of it, they convey much clearer and more powerful emotions than many short stories. But I do think the traditionality of them isn’t as exciting as Portrait was. They feel a lot more “pale”, ha ha.

If you think that’s great, check out chicken slaughtering machines https://www.slaughterhousemachine.com/2500-BPH-efficient-automatic-compact-chicken-slaughter-machine-eruis

Shooting CEO so CEO stops killing people: terrorism

Instilling terror in judges to coerce them to further your political cause: not terrorism

As others have pointed out, I don’t think you have solid evidence to suspect that this is a neurotypical vs ADHD thing.

Personally I think it’s just a matter of poor taste. The sad truth is most people cannot appreciate good art, and the only reason why most works of art are as high quality as they are is because artists make them, and artists do appreciate good art and have high standards. From the artists point of view, their piece needs to meet criteria X, Y, Z, etc. to be a good satisfying piece. But from the point of view of the tasteless plebian masses, it probably only needs to meet criteria X. I first noticed this when I saw that almost every highly upvoted artwork on Reddit years ago was a really hyper realistic pencil drawing, usually of a pretty girl. Most people don’t appreciate form, composition, subtle meanings, abstraction, etc. Those things require more thinking and are therefore too difficult for many people to engage with. Instead, “how hard does this seem to make” and “how much do I like this at first glance” become the proxy standards used by tasteless lazy people to judge art, and hence the “best” art by those standards is a super realistic pencil drawing of a pretty woman became “zomg I thought this was a photo!!!” and “I couldn’t do this in a million years!!! So impressive!!!” As if the point of art is just to flex on people?

But it gets worse, because even when people decide to half-ass their ingestion of art by flattening it down to a single dimension of “how realistic is it”, again, because people aren’t artists and have never even tried to engage in art (and this I actually don’t hold against them, unlike their prior laziness), they don’t have a trained eye. So sometimes you’ll see just a mediocre pencil drawing of a pretty girl, and people with less art skills will be like “wow 10/10 it’s perfect!!!”, but people with art skills will be able to notice things like “well if the shadow on the neck is like that the shadow on the nose should be going the other way, you mixed up your light sources”, or “the perspective is off on the angle of the eyes here”. Sometimes these improvements would be subconsciously picked up by the masses, but many times not. Often the subtleties that make an artwork go from mediocre to amazing are lost on the masses. As a result, the masses are equally satisfied with poor quality AI-generated images as they are with high quality human-generated images.

TLDR; The lack of media literacy among many people strikes again

I despise Bostrom. I tried reading his book, Superintelligence, and found it unbearable. A whole lot of words to say

“if can build machine that can build smarter machine, then machine get INFINITE smart!!1!1!1”

While neglecting the very obvious possibility that maybe a machine of intelligence level 80 is capable of building a machine of intelligence level 130, but that by no means indicates the 130 intelligence machine can magically build a machine smarter than 130 anyways.

All the stuff about Moore’s Law is literally just a correlation. It’s not a law of physics, it’s a fucking chart that we plotted a trend line on top of. Booooo

Idunno, it says cheating was wrong and that it wasn’t the right choice. I feel like this approach would be more likely to eventually persuade the human that they did something wrong, versus just outright saying “cheating is wrong and you have no excuse for this behavior, what you did was totally unjustified and makes no sense”. That may be true, but it’s more likely to just make the user say “fuck this, nobody understands me, I didn’t do anything that bad”. If I was talking to my friend I’d probably take the same approach. You try to empathize with why they did the wrong thing to assure them that you understand why they did what they did, whether it was justified or not. That’s so that you can be on their side from their point of view. People get defensive and irrational when they sense antagonism. You’re much more likely to persuade someone “from the inside”.

Plus, and the irony of this couldn’t be any more emphasized: accusing the AI of “never telling you you’re in the wrong” is a little strange when it literally tells you you’re in the wrong at both the start and end of its response.

“Could this be evidence that my god does not exist? No, it’s my interpretation that is wrong”

No wonder I find their scores so unreliable

Edit: I also now kind of want to do a web scraping project and see if there’s any correlation between scores and whether the media in question is owned by Comcast or Warner Bros