Senal
joined 2 years ago
Are you saying the UK doesn't have ambulances?
That's a ridiculous and easily disprovable claim.
Also aren't the nonexistent uk ambulances free?
As in not charged at a rate of thousands of dollars, they'd still be tax funded I assume.
done
NSFL
I see this argument a lot and it entirely glosses over the fact that the market is at least one order of magnitude larger, possibly two.
The cost of a game is the development, marketing, maintenance to some degree and in some cases physical production of the medium.
Past that it's gravy.
You charge 70 in the 1990's times 100,000 sales vs charging 70 now to a million sales.
It's not like producing a car where you have a fixed unit cost, this is mostly copying already made data.
Yes, the tertiary costs can go up and the development costs can go up but the addressable market has also gone up significantly.
Nintendo specifically is absolutely not living release to release and is the worst possible example for this argument.
Not only do they not really do sales but they also have DLC all the way up the wazoo and frequently rerelease old games at current market prices, with minor tweaks.
They do not, however, lean all the way in to microtransactions, which is nice
That’s not how AI works.
How does it work ?
How is access limited and at the same time you are bullying everyday Joes who are actually using it?
Paywalls limit access, cost of hardware to run locally limits access.
Can some people access it, yes, is access limited, also yes.
Delete all software and turn off your computer or be a hypocrite.
Strawman? maybe?, it's unclear how it's related and as a singular statement is mostly nonsensical.
The stuff they use for training is free for any artist to train on.
It absolutely is not, there are several ongoing lawsuits and repeated strikes about this exact thing.
You don’t own the definition of art and nobody you will encounter in a post of any sort is even doing it for major profit.
This i agree with.
You don’t own the definition of art.
I agree with this also.
AI is for everyone, but is made for the rich to get richer, like literally everything else you see or do online.
AI is for profit, not for everyone.
The major difference here is the scale but you'll have to look in to that yourself.
the majority of the population doesn’t identify this as being nazism.
That's a big claim for no citation.
Taxonomy.
- A cat is [animal]
- A dog is an [animal]
The nazi's did such a good job of distinguishing themselves they created their own (colloquial) taxonomic branch.
So [nazi] could be considered a parent grouping of the National Socialist German Workers' Party and also potentially a parent grouping for the republicans.
I think they key here is separating the nazi party from the [nazi] category
As you pointed out all [nazi]'s are [fascist]'s but not all [fascist]'s are [nazi]'s
- National Socialist German Workers' Party were [nazi]'s
- The American Republican Party are subjectively showing enough similarities (both in type and progression) that they get the provisional label of [nazi] as it's the closest existing definition.
Might turn out that they don't quite fall in the same branch, might turn out they do. Until then [nazi] is an easy shortcut for describing the types of behaviour displayed.
Even if they were just a direct descendent ( taxonomically ) rather than a sibling of the original nazi party there would still be an argument to claim they were nazi's
Like :
- animal -> mammal -> cat
- nazi -> nazi party -> republican
Come back in a few years and you'll probably get your definitive answer either way.
You don't have to agree with any of that of course, but it does demonstrate how someone might have an opposing opinion to your own.
Well, at least they aren't pretending to accept longer passwords but actually truncating it, like they used to in hotmail and live.
They were silently truncating the passwords to something like the first 16 characters, the rest was ignored.
Apologies, i cannot divulge that information as per the NDA i signed at the time.
/s
If people would realize that they try to leave out the terms autism and autistic for a wrong reason (and maybe they don’t) that would be a success
That's phrased in such a way that it seems you think that the only reason to use "on the spectrum" is to purposely leave out the word autism.
If that's what you mean then i disagree, It's only my own anecdotal experience, but it's still at least one instance where what you are possibly suggesting is not true.
Coming from a "my interpretation is the only interpretation" viewpoint is an easy way to get confusing input from the world, at least in my personal experience.
It’s not about choosing whether something is offensive to me or not, but whether it is, be it intended or not.
I also disagree with this, offense is inherently subjective, I'd put good money on me not being the only person who thinks that.
I will however concede that "choose" was a bad choice of word on my part, as it's not always as simple as "choosing".
I am aware that people don’t usually use it to purposefully be offensive, and in that sense I can understand it - but that doesn’t change that (depending on the unconscious reason) it is offensive anyway.
See my answer above about subjective opinion vs objective fact.
But it being offensive to you, regardless of intent, i can understand, which is what i was trying to address with :
You can choose to find the phrase itself offensive and let people know of your opinion, but you should probably manage your expectations around how other people are using it so you can get an accurate reading on social intent.
I phrased that poorly, i think it would be better phrased as :
If you find the phrase itself offensive regardless of intent, you can let people know of your opinion, but you should probably at least try to understand the intent behind it so you can more accurately assess the social context and act accordingly.
for example, if you know they don't intend to be offensive and you react with hostility, that's a valid choice, but it does come with consequences, knowing about the potential consequences beforehand means you can better prepare yourself.
I don't personally consider this a language issue as much as a people issue.
IIRC the current evaluation methodologies are heavily tied to the idea of a spectrum of traits, each with their own scale.
As you say, there are other spectrum diagnoses including autism, so "on the spectrum" is technically correct.
Which is why i consider the issue you seem to be describing as a person issue, not a language one.
A person using a descriptor or label with the intention of being an arsehole could just as easily use a different word or phrase.
Using something that isn't inherently considered offensive however, gives them some plausible deniability.
You can choose to find the phrase itself offensive and let people know of your opinion, but you should probably manage your expectations around how other people are using it so you can get an accurate reading on social intent.