"Add to all the broken basics, the fact that your data is now locked away in a vault that will absolutely disappear at some point in the not-too-distant future, and it just makes no sense at all."
Who cares? Why do you want to record every single thing forever? Do you write down every single thing when you converse with someone in real life?
And you really can't figure out how to use Discord, when a 14-year old apparently can? Maybe it's time to retire.
yeah any complaints about UX should be seen as boomerism and fought against with your full might with no reflection on the critique. When the water wars come and you have to learn to use a slide rule -- remember this day.
I don't understand the issue here. The author of the post is mad because people have the choice to not publicly discuss things? Why do they owe the author their conversations? Is this AI/data scraping related and the author is mad that they can't get a portion of data out there?
The author is mad - rightfully, in my opinion - that many projects use Discord as a defacto knowledge base/documentation/support hub, instead of setting up something that's much better suited for it.
Of course people can privately discuss things, but if you were asking for help with your car, would you prefer that someone tell you which manual and page to look at to solve your problem, or to invite you to their car club that meets on weekends because Timberly probably knows how to solve that problem, and will probably be there next weekend, unless he's not?
I respectfully disagree. At the end of the day, generative art is the same thing as googling an image to search for the end user, in as your aren't creating anything, but rather, you are asking for something to be produced for you based on typed or entered criteria. You are a patron waiting for the engine to produce something for you.
If you want to say there is an art to prompting, that's fine.
To add a bit more precision to my previous reply: You're interpreting "generative" in the way that AI companies have tried to hog the term, which happened only in the last 2-3 years. It's the hyped definition, not the historically rich definition.
Generative art as a general concept has a long, long history, that we can date back at least to performance events like Musikalisches Würfelspiel in the 1700s.
I respectfully disagree. let's think from a first principle point of view, what is the definition of art in the first place? But whatever the answer is, art is just a way of structuring/representing a mix of multiple arts into one single art, and it's not limited to painting arts. historically people have been taking inspiration from nature, other people, the environment, and more. That's what an AI does as well, but with much more creativity than a human.
I did. It's trying to play off randomness as art, hence the generative part, and trying to subtly relate that to AI through use of abstract artists like Pollock.
It's also not new. If you've taken any modern art history class before, this is article/website is the same content. Every generation of art/artist tries to justify their existence to the last.
This is the correct answer. It was taken as an assault on what everyone grew up with and learned their particular trade on (and still may use).
It's also a bad comparison on Apple's part. An ipad is another creative tool and provides a different experience than other methods (like traditional painting). For example, I play acoustic and electric guitar, but also use Ableton. I love my acoustic for the feel and experience, something I can't get in Ableton. I use Ableton for digital composition and sampling, something that's completely different from the feel of strings and how the notes feel through the wood of my acoustic. They are different experiences and usage and purpose.
If social media was ever regulated, it would have to (and should be, IMO) done from the angle of the financial regulation. If social media is compared to a marketplace, then the marketplace can be regulated to ensure financial health of the system.
What it shouldn't be regulated for is the content itself. I don't like congresspeople of any party wanting to regulate something because they see less of the news they like on one platform, regardless of if it's factual merit. These are voluntary entertainment sites. If you want to see a platform that carries your news, then instead you free to talk with your wallet, to petition the company and get other users on board, and totally free to start your own platform (or, as seems to be the trend nowadays, free to buy someone else's if you can't make one yourself)
'Gospel' means you don't have evidence for something or can't prove it practically, meaning it relies on story/word of mouth, which is why it's generally associated with religion and not science (or should not be anyways).
It seems there might be a misunderstanding of the situation. The judiciary in India operates independently from the current government, led by the BJP, ensuring a separation of powers. Additionally, it's important to note that Al Jazeera has been criticized for its coverage, which some perceive as biased against India. I encourage a deeper examination of the corruption case at hand before forming a conclusion.
Investigation agencies like ED and IT have only gone after the opposition parties.
There is no misunderstanding of the situation. ED, CID and SBI (One of the biggest banks in India) turned into the most corrupt organization in the history of India.
BJP and Modi government openly destroyed all the government agencies and made them corrupt.
Yes, what can you do if they are corrupt? Give them a free pass JUST because they are opposition? Were ED, CID and SBI non-existent before the current BJP party?? Why then did the former congress govts not make them independent - after all they were in power for almost 70 years since independence??
What you said is true. But I was talking about this line in particular
> There is no misunderstanding of the situation. ED, CID and SBI (One of the biggest banks in India) turned into the most corrupt organization in the history of India.
No, my argument is that they do not like India / Indians. Show me something positive they have covered about India. I wouldnt care about them otherwise.
I can extend your line of argument to say that the reason maybe that you don't like them because of qatar connection and they are Muslim majority country. And in india there is a lot of nationalists that are Islamphopics and that ruling party is oppressing Muslim minority in india. But you would say that this is wrong and no evidence of that and I can say that you don't cover any Muslim minority oppression and that is why you are anti-muslim. This is how the argument you are presenting is flawed.
So how do you define a minority? Muslims are the second largest majority in India and also the world. Also, if as you say muslims are oppressed in India, how and why is it that most muslims from Pakistan and Bangladesh want to enter India and none of the existing muslims within India want to leave.
One only has to follow the population trends of muslims inside India, and that of non-muslims (especially Hindus) in Pakistan / Bangladesh / Afghanistan to understand the truth. Please do not go about spreading falsehoods when the things I have mentioned above can be checked independently. Please.
I didn't say that you are Islamphopic. My point is that your argument is bad and if someone else used it they can reach to the conclusion that you are Islamphopic (as an example).
I don't also want to go into discussion about this particular problem with India because it will be off topic. But I will just answer that
> So how do you define a minority?
You define that with respect to the demographic of the country/place we are talking about. Tech workers in the US are minority among population, it doesn't matter that they probably not a minority in Silicon Valley.
> You define that with respect to the demographic of the country/place we are talking about. Tech workers in the US are minority among population, it doesn't matter that they probably not a minority in Silicon Valley
Ok, if that is your definition of a minority, please elaborate how you are making the leap to call Muslims in India a minority?
It doesn't matter whether a source likes you or not. It matters if what they are reporting is factual and verifiable. If you only go with sources that say nice things about you, then you're biased and are living in a bubble of your own narcissism.
That's my point. I was trying to be nuanced. Hatred has led AJ to frequently report baseless news about India / Indians / Hindus. India is a large, complex country despite extreme diversity and hostile neighbors peddling terrorism every single day. Hindus are largely peaceful and law abiding - not only within India but abroad too. But if you read AJ, you'd come to the totally opposite conclusions.
Those aren't factual though, those are one just one side of an opinionated argument. Social media can also be argued to have positive values. IE, I would argue that most kids use social media not because of being addicted, but because they find and form new types of communities:
Given it's Florida and the political leanings of it's governor, I would argue the law is more in line with CCP/Communist values: attempt to disrupt the communication networks of a demographic that is highly against you.
This is one of those times when legal English sounds like everyday English, but isn't. In this context, "factual" doesn't mean "proven true", but rather "of the category of issues that are factual in nature" (instead of legal in nature). The point here is that the factual bases Florida will offer in support of there being a compelling governmental interest are somewhat different (and probably better substantiated) than the factual bases California gave in Brown, for example.
The reason this matters is that the precedential effect of a prior opinion such as Brown depends on how similar the underlying facts are to the present dispute. If a court wants to go in a different direction, it will usually prefer not to overturn the previous opinion, but rather to say that it doesn't apply here because the facts are different.
According to Jonathan Haidt's research, most teens would prefer to not be on social media because they recognize the toxicity of it but feel compelled to be on it because they have FOMO.
It depends on what the change is. I wouldn't approve states trialing slavery. I don't agree with the social media law as well. It's a cultural tool, so let parents dictate what they want their kids to see or use. If anything, they could push laws to give parents better tools/information to help them manager their kid's screen time, not just an outright ban.
Any kind of search can be deemed constitutional if it goes through a warrant process, which is the point of warrants. This story is less about the how the information was taken and more about whether or not the warrant process and 4th Amendment rights were properly followed.
This would then be mixed in with the question of whether or not new forms of data (like video views) would equate to previous forms of similar data searches that police have obtained warrants for (like reviewing CCTV).
Who cares? Why do you want to record every single thing forever? Do you write down every single thing when you converse with someone in real life?
And you really can't figure out how to use Discord, when a 14-year old apparently can? Maybe it's time to retire.