I’d argue this is true of most entertainment. It works though. Cookies aren’t good either, but they trick my brain into thinking it’s happy for a few minutes. I’ll fucking take it.
Have you watched the first two Raimi-directed Spiderman movies? I think they stand alone well even for someone that doesn’t typically watch superhero movies.
I stopped a long time ago, sorry. I bet some of them are good… But it’s still just at the expense of that director. They didn’t want to do this movie. They use their creative energy and passion for making money.
Can you elaborate on your second sentence? Not trying to be ignorant, but it genuinely sounds like “ice cream doesn’t taste good, it just has ingredients that makes your taste buds act favorable towards it”
On exactly at what timing in your life x would generate y amount of mostaliga.
Or, at the golden ratio of this scene we need a humorous pause and a quip.
Or now this group needs a comic relief character that also represents the audience that identifies with Adhd symptoms.
Or this movie can tie in to that one because this moment will generate most money.
Then they “hire” directors and actors to play out this plan. They don’t have passion or what to tell a story, just follow a money making machine script
On and on like that Until it’s not governed a single bit by passion, or trying to convey any message.
Kind of like kids music, it’s attractive up to a certain point when you learn the tricks, then it’s hot garbage
Here’s something about American politics to provoke a lot of people, especially on this site:
Donald Trump should be elected in 2024 purely to serve as an exam to the left. Liberalism clearly doesn’t work anymore, there’s a lot of discontent in the world and a shift towards far-right politics, while left is almost non-existent in almost any country, it doesn’t have an answer. With Donald Trump getting elected for his revenge term and demolishing democracy, hopefully it’s a catastrophe strong enough for the left to wake up.
The machine learning models and developments we see these last years called “AI” for some reason, is as big, if not bigger than the IT and internet revolution, and has applications on a broader spectrum than anyone can currently imagine.
Dont get it confused. Downvotes are not a measure of hatred. People up and downvote depending on if they agree, and even that measure does not represent “correctness” of a comment.
Honestly try to ignore upvote scores, people who obsess over them and want to get upvoted are sheep who repeat popular phrases to get internet points
I think the human brain works kind of the opposite of that. Babies are born with a shitload of neural connections, then the connections decrease over a person’s lifetime. ANNs typically do something similar to that while training (many connection weights will be pushed toward zero, having little or no effect).
But yeah, these LLMs are typically trained once, and frozen during use. “Online learning” is a type of training that continually learns, but current online methods typically lead to worse models (ANNs “forget” old things they’ve “learned” when learning new things).
The number of times I’ve used assembly in games is weirdly high. I always enjoy applying it. It’s more interesting than modern high level languages that handle everything for you. That said, I don’t know where it’s really professionally relevant anymore really.
It’s relevant working with microcontrollers or other resource constrained embedded systems. For example, the ESP32 series of microcontrollers have an ultra-low power processor core that can do a few things while the main core(s) are powered off, but you usually have to write a separate binary for these. It can be handy to know Xtensa or RISCV assembly for this process.
Depends on the community IMHO. In piracy communities it is for sure not a controversial thought. Outside of those communities is an entirely different matter.
We are trying to solve computer/rocket-age problems with a caveman brain. If we don’t start genetic engineering humans soon i’d wager we’ll eradicate ourselves before we colonize other planets and stars.
Some of these are lemmy-specific perhaps, more mainstream outside of this place:
Free markets work better than anything else we have practically tried so far
Neo-marxism is a problem
LGBTQIA+ activist are overcorrecting, especially for TQIA+
Palestine is a fascist state
USA and EU have problems, some of them big ones, but they are generally a force for good on this planet
Young people use smart devices too much, like older people
Internet services in general are fucking up our minds big time, including those that attempt to be benevolent like Lemmy and Mastodon. They all eat attention energy, which is an extremely scarce resource.
All drugs should be decriminalized, most of them should be legalized (paraphrasing Bill Hicks, some should be mandatory)
Karl Popper didn’t quite mean what antifa thinks he meant
Mainstream religions, even if factually and is some parts also ethically full of shit, generally work well in making individuals strive for the best they can
Piratism is unethical but can be excused when legally provided services suck
Open source is a vastly superior method of developing software in a global sense
very curious how you came to the conclusion that i blocked you
people chanting “from the river to the sea” generally do not support the hamas government
EDIT: judging by the fact that parent did not respond to this comment (posted within an hour) but did respond to a different reply made a day later, it seems parent assumed I had blocked them and decided to block me
I can agree with some of those, but what do you mean with the LGBTQAI+? All people ask for is to be treated equally to everyone else. Also, “especially TQIA+?” What have asexuals ever done to you?
All people ask for is to be treated equally to everyone else.
I’m sure you’re aware that this is not at all what I’m talking about. Equal treatment for all is a 100% fine demand and should be complied immediately.
The things they are demanding and which I feel are overcorrecting (i.e. go past just equal rights) include demands by legislation to force the pronoun issue; demands for overriding by default the will of parents when deciding healthcare (psychological and physical) of their children; demands of bathroom/dressing room usage and demands of being allowed to participate in sports in the series they identify as instead of in the series their body is. These are not black and white issues and I’m not claiming that they are.
Thing is, demanding merely equal rights for trans people is not quite enough, because some of the things they need/want are things that nobody else needs. So in that way I think it’s not quite honest to say that they just want equal rights.
But I want to reiterate that where they lack equal rights their fight is 100% legit, without any question.
“LGB without the T” is transphobic. Most pride folks will know you mean well if you say LGBT. They’ll know you’re an ass if you say LGB Alliance. The other parts are, for example, if gays have marriage rights but transgender folks can’t get healthcare. Intersectionality is about how marginalized folks should band together in recognizing that different kinds of marginalized folks (color of your skin, your age, disability) are marginalized in similar ways. Privileged folks haven’t experienced the friction and frustration other folks have.
Yeah, I’m aware of that dog whistle and will try to avoid it. But a fact is that LGB rights have mostly been cemented in all the non-regressive parts of the world, and the rest of the letters (well, T at least) are still fighting. Some parts of that fight is legit (like I said elsewhere, demanding equal treatment is 100% fine), but some of it overcorrects.
But this thread was asking for non-popular opinions, so I guess I scored here. Here’s another: I don’t think being called transphobic is a much of an insult. Trans is weird and it’s normal to feel weird about it. Translating that feeling into denying their rights is deeply wrong, nevertheless. I believe trans activists should work on this angle more (perhaps they do already? I don’t follow them enough to know for sure), I believe that would win them support more easily from a wider audience, when compared to a strategy that demands acceptance on top of mere tolerance.
There’s no public debt crisis. People don’t understand how government debt works. One casualty of this is the slow green transition which will cost us dearly in the future.
Yeah people have painfully simple thinking about it, but the same is true for what you say about a slow green transition - yes we should go faster and put more effort in but we are actually moving impressively fast in most areas.
Debt is ok if it translates to more income later, in national terms income really means production potential and that increased ability to produce things should result in a better standard of living for the people who make up the country. This is why it’s such a problem when the rich just take it all for absurd luxuries.
The current rate of green technology transition is better than it looks for a similar theoretical reason, most the real effort is currently being spent on developing technology and building infrastructural backbones like the huge grid connection cabels out to areas suitable for large scale renewable projects. Plenty of turbines and solar farms are getting built of course with new supply chains, tooling methods, and working principles being developed as we go. The price, both economic and environmental of putting in wind and solar has dropped dramatically and continues to.
There’s a lot of research projects that should be getting more funding and a lot of oil, coal and gas money that should be going to building renewables but there is a lot of funding going to great projects and as we get better tooling to manufacture the parts and install them the rate of adoption is going to skyrocket.
If we invest in building the tools then we’ll be making wind turbines out of sequestered carbon and putting them up quicker then you can count them. If we invest everything in increasing capacity it’ll end up in a whole load of low quality things getting made in processes that do more harm to the environment than of we hadn’t bothered.
Of course consumer adoption is a huge thing and we should all get solar panels end whatever else we can but we also need to acknowledge the good things being done, praise them and call for more.
Yep. Debt is an investment to increase taxable value later to make up for it. It’s also mostly owned by Americans, so the money paying for debt is going back into the economy, which is then creating more taxable value. As long as debt is used to make more money later, it isn’t bad. People understand this on a personal level (taking on debt to open a business can be a good decision, for example), but they been mislead by some people that for a nation it’s bad. They say this for a reason though, and it isn’t because they actually think debt is bad.
I developed this intuition for myself that I think kinda works. I think of it govt debt a bit like stock investment in a large corporation. People “put money” in it because they believe it delivers returns and will keep delivering returns. And as you said, this is actually much easier for the government to do than a corporation as simply the fact of releasing the money into the economy generates returns. So instead of thinking about the size of the debt, one should be thinking about the ability of the government to function well. Ironically, it seems like this is also the way the market looks at it. It keeps throwing money at it and it only knocked off its credit rating due to the threat of dysfunction around the debt ceiling.
If you think polygamous people are less possesive and jealous i have quite some stories to tell about the polygamous people i know. Polygamy in theory requires an emotional matureness that i have yet to wittness in practice. All the polygamous people i know either had more of a harem idea, with them having many devout sex partners or were just unable to form strong and commited relationships.This goes for all interpersonalrelationships, not just sexual ones.
I cannot judge if there is people able to live it like envisoned, but the ones i know are basically children that didnt learn yet, that you cannot have every toy in the store.
That’s not devoid of truth, but there’s more to it than that.
A pact of absolute partnership is a powerful thing when both parties truly believe in it. Physical intimacy has a huge and subtle effect on one’s entire being, and restricting it isn’t that crazy. Humans aren’t the only animals which exhibit monogamy.
What is archaic is the opposition to normalizing polyamory as well. There are all kinds of harmful knock-on effects of a monogamy-only society, and people should have the freedom to choose without being ostracised simply for not conforming.
Anyone who thinks monogamy would not exist without social mores to enforce it is fooling themselves.
Nowadays, patents are being misused in Patent Ambush mechanisms and scenarios, meanwhile Patent Trolls and Hoarders whole existence is are to impede/obstruct legally and impose exorbitant levies/fees onto organization and companies actually innovating and developing useful art/process/devices. Even more incredible, there are Submarine Patents being hidden away to suddenly take hostage existing products and process of various companies by imposing extortionate royalties.
Intellectual property laws are theft of human potential. Instead of focusing on actual progress, everyone is focused on how to get around parents. Incentivize innovation, not the opposite.
Gender is the cultural outcome of primary and secondary sexual characteristics and in no meaningfully physical way exist. Meaning, we traditionally have a “boy” culture and a “girl” culture, not a gender. We are artificially indoctrinated and assimilated into a given culture based on primary or secondary sexual characteristics.
Likewise, it follows that all other gender identities are similarly a cultural phenomenon and not the outcome of some essential characteristic of the individual.
Gender cultures are, at least historically speaking, bad. They’ve generally been used to persecute people who aren’t in the dominant (boy) gender, and the conditions dictating mobility between genders is so intensly arbitrary that it warrants abolishing the whole stupid idea. Gender dysphoria is a symptom, generally, of the tyranny of these conditions.
(PS, I totally am open to being wrong about this.)
I slightly disagree. While the predominant aspects are cultural there is strong links between hormone levels and certain character traits. Also physical aspects do affect the character development. E.g. tall men tend to be more intimidating than small women, so their characters adjust to taking advantage or mitigating these effects.
The important point is that there is no absolutes and people should not be held up to stereotypes, but there is correlation between the physical aspects and character development.
there are links between hormone levels and certain character traits, but those hormone levels aren’t necessarily determined by sex and are 100% mutable in the modern era.
But these traits are secondary and tertiary sexual characteristics (ie they are tied to your biological sex). They are certainly the origin of gender identity, but they don’t justify it. My dissatisfaction is not with the concept of sex. It’s fair to say, “oh that person has a penis, that person is a woman, that person is intersex,” and we should strive to develop better, more diverse sexual classifies, but gender? Na.
Gender roles/ jobs, fem and masculine, the separation of media to cater towards one gender or the other, the gendering of clothes, attitudes, and opinions, and finally the gendering of sex. It’s all just caveman talk, imo
I generally agree, but for hard physical labor you will simply find more men doing them even in a perfectly equal society. Simply because the body shape of biological men tends to be more suitable. Of course there will also be “manly” biological men that dont identify as men, or “feminine” biological men that do identify as such, etc. It is important that these are not absolutes, but trends. So they allow for general statements but never to judge for an individual.
I get what you are meaning to say, that secondary sexual characteristics dictate certain trends and limits. I agree.
However, what I find interesting is that historically, the bulk of manual labor was done by the lowest class cultures. It depends on the time and place, but indentured servants, slaves, and women of the household were expected to do most of the labor. These decisions were not made on the merits of absolute physical strength, but rather by ones social status.
In fact, the strongest men. Those with the most physical apitude and power, tended to enjoy leisure at the expense of these lower classes. Including thier women.
The idea that strong men make strong countries, or do the best work, is a myth. Typically, wealth is built by poor men, women, and subjugated social classes, and the mythical status of the strong man gender stereotype serves to justify this arrangement.
So yes, the strongest biological male human will probably always outlift the strongest biological female, but the actual outcomes of who does the work is decided by gender, and historically, the labor feel on the woman. See what I mean about gender being, “bad?”
Add comment