Billiam @ billiam0202 @lemmy.world

Posts

3

Comments

2,683

Joined

2 yr. ago

Someone should really try "my nuts to your fist style."

Hell, name one of them that you would call even mildly competent.

(With the caveat, of course, that "competence" refers to "serving the best interests of the US" and not "turning everything to shit for Trump.")

When Tesla wins a civil suit about this story, then I'll believe they're not lying.

This sums it up:

AI can't tell you what's true or not, so it can't tell you when you're wrong.

I haven't looked up the details, but apparently Trump went to Michigan this week to announce some kind of tariff reduction to Detroit.

Didn't you hear? Trump's administration is redefining "full self driving" for Tesla:

Consumer Reports noted that under the new rules, vehicles with advanced driver assistance systems like Tesla Autopilot will not need to report crashes using the system unless it involves a fatality, an injured person requiring hospitalization, a pedestrian being struck, or an air bag deployment.

You forgot about Neuralink, xAI, The Boring Company...

More like mark of the hambeast.

I guarantee this sender has opinions about "The Globalists."

Studies show that two out of every three Trump voters are just as stupid as the third one.

What's he whining about? He's not going to be impeached.

Blueprint for Armageddon, King of Kings, and Destroyer of Worlds are absolutely fantastic episodes.

It can literally resurrect 10 year old computers.

I've got a 14-year-old Toshiba that I used in college that runs a weird variant of Ubuntu called Kumander (it's designed specifically to look and feel like Windows 7, which I think is properly nostalgic for the hardware). As long as you don't expect the battery to last more than an hour (which about par for the course for a laptop from then) it's perfectly serviceable as a SOHO-type machine.

Also it can double as a self-defense weapon cause it weighs like 10 lbs.

This is exactly how YouTube's DMCA takedown system works, and how media companies have been abusing it since it's inception. Someone claims copyright on your video, and Google immediately takes it down. You then can contest the claim and Youtube will put it back up. But the claimant can contest your contest, and Google will then tell you that you can't have it up and have to settle in court with the claimant. Oh, and you get a strike to boot.

The whole process is automated, because there's so much content now it's impractical for every single takedown request to be addressed by a human. And because there is no punishment for bad-faith takedown requests, there is no incentive for the claimants to ensure their IP is really being infringed.

Counter point. If there’s a drop in subscriptions and a spike on piracy after they release, they can conclude that the best approach is to drop the show and J. Terf Rowling.

Media execs don't see piracy as an economics or social issue. They believe it's a technological issue and they just need to find the right silver bullet to force you to watch the content that they know you want to watch (why would you be pirating it otherwise?) while paying them for it.

No corporation has seen an increase of piracy of their content and thought anything other than "We need stricter anti-piracy measures."

Lots of media are popular that didn't make money, but there's no media that made lots of money that wasn't also popular.

Money directly correlates with popularity when talking about films/books/television. Why do you think, for example, that there was only one Eragon movie despite there being four books? And yet Twilight also had four books, but had five movies made?

You seriously think the suits spending tens or hundreds of millions of dollars making movies or tv shows don't care about what's popular? Then why the hell are they remaking Harry Potter?

Watching/playing/acquiring media without paying for it only sends the message that the demand is there; it's just that the anti-piracy enforcement schemes haven't been perfected yet.

If 100 million people watch this show on day one, but only 1 million paid to do so, the question is going to be "How can we force those other 99 million people to pay for this?" But if zero people watch this show, the immediate red flag will be "People used to love Harry Potter? Why aren't they watching it now?"

You want to show that Joanne Rowling's bigotry isn't to be tolerated? You don't show her that her content is still wanted; you shut her out completely.

Again, I never said they weren't causing harm. You're conflating the concepts of aid and beneficence.

Trump and his ilk being in power is not beneficial to the country, but their sheer stupidity in attempting to achieve their goals aids their opposition in stopping them.

I didn't say they were harmless. I said their incompetence only helps their opposition.

The Nazis were more competent and still lost. How would being less competent than that help them in any way?