• objectively wrong: doubles down
• no expert: the most educated
• dumbed down (thanks!): incomprehensible amounts of wits

Does your LinkedIn profile list, “The School of Hard Knocks”, under education? You argue like someone who has never had any serious, formal education.

On the bright side, you should seriously consider running for public office, you check every box for the modern politician in some places.

I think you’re both arguing about the wrong things, but did you read the article you cited?

Literally the first sentence of the article:

The Palestinian militant group Islamic Jihad fired a barrage of rockets into Israel on Monday as…

If, like me, you’re not an expert in Iranian backed militia groups, it then goes on to say:

Islamic Jihad, an ally of Hamas - both of whom are backed by Iran - said…

Idk about the rockets or any of the details but do try to become familiar with the evidence you’re citing before acting like you’re an authority on the topic.

This is a matter of perspective.

I disagree, these children are minors and the their behavior, while abhorrent, belies a fundamental lack of perspective and empathy.

I’ve been a teenage boy before and I did some bone-headed things. Maybe not this bad, but still, I agree with the judge in this instance that it would be inappropriate to impose permanent consequences on these kids before their life even gets started because they were stupid, horny, teenage boys.

Even if we assume that these kids don’t all have well-meaning parents who who will impose their own punishments, having a probation officer in high school is not going to help with popularity. Then, mandatory classes that will force these boys to evaluate the situation from another perspective seems like a great add-on.

I know it doesn’t feel like justice, but our goal as a society shouldn’t be to dole out maximum punishment in every instance. The goal is to allow all of us to peacefully coexist and contribute to society - throwing children in a dark hole somewhere to be forgotten isn’t going to help with that.

Having said all of the above, it feels like a good time to emphasize that we still don’t have any good ideas for solving the core problem here, which is the malicious use of this technology that was dumped on society without any regard for the types of problems that it would create, and entirely without a plan to add guard rails. While I’m far from the only one considering this problem, it should be clear enough by now that dragging our feet on creating regulation isn’t getting us any closer to a solution.

At a minimum it feels like we need to implement a mandatory class on the responsible use of technology, but the obvious question there is how to keep the material relevant. Maybe it’s something that tech companies could be mandated to provide to all users under 18 - a brief, recurring training (could be a video, idc) and assessment that minors would have to complete quarterly to demonstrate that they understand their responsibilities.

They were never really hiding it, we just all assumed they were insane fringe ideas and nothing would come of it. Things have changed…

Is there any chance you’re at a kbbq or hotpot restaurant? Because then you get to cook the meal yourself, which is arguably chef-like.

Jokes aside, I see the comparison you’re making and it’s not a bad one. I’d counter by giving the example of a menu - when you get to a restaurant you’re given a menu with text descriptions of the food you can receive from the kitchen. Since this is an analogy and not an exact comparison, let’s say that a meal on the menu is like the starting point of the workflow I described.

Based on that you have an idea of what the output will be when you order - but let’s say you don’t like mushrooms and you prefer your sauce on the side. When you make your order you provide those modifications - this is like inpainting.

Certainly you’re not a ‘chef’, but if the dish you design is both bespoke and previously unimaginable, I’d argue that at the very least you contributed to the creative process and participated in creating something new that matches your internal vision.

Not exactly the same but I don’t think it’s entirely different.

Not OP but familiar enough with open source diffusion image generators to be able to chime in.

Now I’d argue that being an artist comes down to being able to envision something in your mind’s eye and then reproduce it in the real world using some medium, whether it’s a graphite pencil, oil paint, a block of marble, Wacom tablet on a pc, or even through a negotiation with an AI model. Your definition might be different, but for the sake of conversation this is how I’m thinking about it.

The work flow for an AI generated image can have a few steps before feeling like it sufficiently aligns with your vision. Prompting for specific details can be tricky, so usually step 1 is to generate the basic outline of the image you’re after. Depending on your GPU or cloud service, this could take several minutes or hours before you get a basis that you can work with. Once you have the basic image, you can then use inpainting tools to mask specific areas of the image and change specific details, colors, etc. This again can take many many generations before you land on something that sufficiently matches your vision.

This is all also after you go through the process of reviewing and selecting one of the hundreds of models that have been trained specifically for different types of output. Want to generate anime-style art? There’s a model for that, want something great at landscapes? There’s a different one for that. Surely you can use an all-purpose model for everything, but some models simply don’t have the training to align to your vision, so you either choose to live with ‘close enough’ or you start downloading new options, comparing them with your existing work flow, etc.

There’s certainly skill associated with the current state of image generation. Perhaps not the same level of practice you need to perfectly represent a transparent veil in graphite, but as with other formats I have a hard time suggesting that when someone represents their vision in the real world that it’s automatically “not art”.

I have one of these, and while the switch tech is certainly neat, I haven’t really come up with many good ways to use it.

Their implementation doesn’t seem to support changing resistance or being sensitive to multiple levels of pressure on the key, but one way I do use it is by changing the activation distance for certain keys that I tend to press by mistake when gaming, like caps lock, so that you really need to bottom out the key to activate it. This seems to help a bit but I suspect that if I wanted to get the most out of it, I would probably need to be a much more intense gamer.

For MANY Americans, the US is their whole world. 🤷‍♂️

Sorry bud, you’re in the wrong community if you’re looking for allies when you bring logic based on reality into the conversation.

Never in the history of mankind has conservatism been stopped by pacifism.

• American Civil Rights Movement
• Indian Independence from Britain
• Singing Revolution in the Baltics
• Arab Spring

There are tons more examples but the point is that I only need one because your statement was so broadly inflammatory.

I don’t disagree with your sentiment, but to claim that violence is the only way to make societal progress makes you seem intentionally obtuse.

This is objectively and verifiably false. Recommend you cool your jets a smidgen, the darkest hour is just before the dawn.

At this point it’s more about motivating voters to show up than swaying voters from one side to the other.

Consider the uncommitted voter movement in Michigan - those folks aren’t likely to ever vote for Trump, he’s even farther from their position on the issue. The risk that they primarily represent is not submitting a ballot at all.

Expect ads in Michigan, and to a lesser extent nationwide, advertising how Biden’s support of Israel has evolved in recent weeks, including the recent (failed - China/Russia vetoed) UN vote to call for a ceasefire in GAZA, which the US supported.

It feels like lots of people holding their breath until “prices go back down”, passing out from a lack of oxygen, waking up, asking why the prices are still so damn high, then holding their breath again when they’re told, “this is just the price now, deal with it”.

I mean don’t get me wrong, it would be neat if we could go back to 1990 prices, but that just isn’t how this works, nor should it be our goal.

Don’t need the luck, I don’t chase fool’s errands.

In this thread: “Biden did not have a 1-on-1 conversation with my manager that resulted in a massive raise, so I declare these statistics invalid!”

This seems to happen a lot on Lemmy, makes me miss the Economics subreddit.

I know that not everyone has had the opportunity to take classes in economics, but the amount of people who are unable to see past their own nose is incredible.

How would we prefer our leaders to make policy decisions? Should they pick a random 10 people and ask what they think, or would it be better to gather a wide range of data on the topic to build an understanding of the economic impacts for 300M+ people? I’d argue that it would be irresponsible for policymakers to ignore the aggregate statistics, but commenters in this thread seem dead set on asserting that because their personal circumstances don’t follow the narrative, the statistics must be a lie.

I suspect that the goal with this program is to advantage first time home buyers over their competitors, such as REITs and hedge funds that have been indiscriminately buying up housing across the country. Obviously the devil is in the details but there’s a way to implement this that makes sense and isn’t insane, but we’ll have to wait until the bill passes to see if that’s the path we take.

Your article is two years old and provides a mountain of speculation about economics that didn’t pan out in reality. Seriously, check it out, inflation in the US peaked lower than the UK or EU, and has trended below them consistently through today.

Go ahead and argue about the relative stability of more insular economies like Japan and China, but the Fed did exactly what they set out to do, and they did it more effectively than other comparable central banks.

You know only a tiny little slice went to working class Americans right?

Like, everyone got the $1400, even Bill Gates. But a lot went to people, companies, and states that just didn’t need it.

Objectively, verifiably false. Single taxpayers under $75k, couples under $150k. Bill Gates didn’t benefit. Maybe you’re thinking of the stimulus that Trump signed that blindly handed out thousands of dollars to businesses with little to no accountability?

Ah yes, I believe you’ve encountered people in the wild who support leopards eating their face. This is a documented phenomenon and I, for one, don’t have a clue what can be done about it.

Nah, everyone who says, “don’t vote third party” simply paid attention in their civics class and understands how our electoral system works.

Independents have won federal offices before, not the presidency, but we have evidence showing that third parties can win elections. However, if two candidates are clear frontrunners, voting for a third party doesn’t positively contribute to the outcome of the election.

In fact, the data shows that a vote for a minority candidate makes it more likely that the winner of the election will hold views that are actually farther from one’s preferences than if one voted for a majority candidate. This is a big part of the push for states to move to ranked choice voting, so that voters don’t need to make this kind of electoral compromise.

If you’re in Maine, Alaska, or Hawaii, you may be in luck! Otherwise, you can put your hands over your eyes and yell about the injustice of it all, but it doesn’t change the facts; which is why grownups having political discussions dismiss minority candidates as being irrelevant to the discussion.