Maybe innocent people who aren’t as technically literate as you that also happen to be using Chrome don’t deserve for their rights to be infringed upon? If that’s an unpopular thought then so be it I suppose.

Leftist beliefs align more nicely with reality as opposed to rightist beliefs, it doesn’t mean that reality itself adheres strictly to leftist beliefs. Reality governs itself independently of all thought, no matter what patterns and similarities we can interpret between the two. It would be far more appropriate to say that leftism has a reality bias as opposed to the other way around.

the simple fact of the matter is that reality corresponds much more with left-wing pronciples and viewpoints than it does right-wing principles and viewpoints.

I’m not quite as sure it can be said that any abstract ideas or viewpoints can be said to correspond with reality. There’s nothing to say that it’s the case for that as it is with the existence of gravity or the roundness of the Earth. It’d be just as valid for me to appeal to the divine right of royalty as a matter of fact and yet (hopefully) we all know how little weight that actually holds in any practical sense.

I suppose what I’m trying to say is that reality isn’t something that can be bound to any one idea or perspective. Reality for, say, a cow is going to be a hell of a lot different from reality for any human being, and neither perspective is any more or less valid than the other. The fact that Humanity is still bickering among itself about the “right” religion and the “right” ideology I believe is proof enough of the nonexistence of any one objective truth when it comes to the things we believe in.

Most importantly though if we presuppose reality to have a bias of any kind then we’re still falling into the pit of human hubris that we’ve fallen into time and again throughout human history, and without a doubt still are. The universe doesn’t have any obligation to adhere to any one of our beliefs, and so when we make absurd leaps in logic based on them we’re setting ourselves up for damage and suffering far outweighing that which was ever necessary. The Crusades, Manifest Destiny, the Great Chinese Famine, the Holocaust… they were all caused at least on a psychological level through blind faith and uncompromising adherence to inherently fallacious ideas. At best there’s nothing productive about those beliefs, and at worst you get something like what I listed above.

I’m inclined to reframe this adage as rationality having a left-wing bias, since, y’know, reality is inherently unbiased. I realize I’m being somewhat pedantic though.

DBT is derived from CBT

Bitch-boy CEO whining about rival company that epitomizes everything he doesn’t have at every chance he gets, very typical behaviour just carry on

I don’t disagree, but we shouldn’t kid ourselves by getting rid of them in the name of some abstract value like revenge or justice. It should be a means of getting rid of what essentially amounts to a disease in humanity, nothing more. Pulling the lever in the trolley problem, basically.

We also can’t really say that getting rid of the current one-percent will solve the problem once and for all. As far as human civilization has existed there’s always been a group like that. There needs to be systematic prevention of such a group ever coming about in the first place.

If there’s no immediate resolution that we can all definitively see to the problem of disproportionate distribution of wealth, then nobody will be able to agree on when to stop the correctional acts. I mean, who’s to say when justice has been served? Hardly anyone can agree on what justice even is when it comes down to it, considering how it’s a concept that only really exists in human imagination. The French Revolution was great until the revolutionaries basically went nuts and started killing almost anyone who so much as criticized their methods. That shouldn’t be a possibility.

Don’t put words in my mouth, they taste too salty.

To an extent violence is an effective tool: that I can definitely agree with. There’s never been any social progress without blood being shed on some level.

It’s when it turns into a gratuitous means of communal catharsis that it becomes inherently counterintuitive by serving no other practical outcome than creating murderers and dehumanizers out of progressives. And these sub-humans and urchins you speak of are, whether you like it or not, extremely human, and even further than that are direct products of the societies that we’ve been complacent in for our entire lives and, likewise, we are also products of.

So to answer your question clearly, I draw the line at violence when it’s in the name of the abstract: not only because I oppose things like the death penalty as a matter of principle, but because violence for an ideal or ideals is valuable to no one and nothing. No one gains anything material by destroying for the sake of it. It’s just that: destructive. Something I wish we humans learned a long time ago, but I digress.

Ah, the chimpanzee method.

It really weirds me out that gratuitous violence as a response to societal injustice is so common on Lemmy, if not across Humanity as a whole. Like let’s say this back-to-basics style of justice comes about in modern society and all the relevant assholes are subjected to it. What then? At least, what would the violence even be in the name of? Retribution? How is that productive in any way?

I realize this is a pretty disproportionate response to a relatively banal comment, but I see sentiments such as this one (either intended as sarcasm or not) so often here that I’m essentially using this as a catch-all spot for my thoughts on it.

I’ll just end this tangent with a quote about this sort of thing from a guy way smarter than me (and I promise I’m not just trying to be pretentious it actually applies.)

Absolute freedom mocks at justice. Absolute justice denies freedom. To be fruitful, the two ideas must find their limits in each other. - My buddy Albert Camus

Valve directly stated that they had to reconsider their pricing for the steam machine (i.e. increase it substantially more than originally intended) because of the obscenely inflated costs of components. This isn’t just about the steam machine being “too expensive,” the prices for it are quite literally far higher than they should be, albeit with it being for the most part out of Valve’s hands. It’s far more complicated than consumers being greedy and desensitized.

Source for Valve’s statement: https://www.pcmag.com/news/valve-confirms-steam-machine-will-cost-over-1000-heres-how-to-buy-one

Valve notes that the RAM crunch has impacted pricing. “The overall effect is that our original goal for the price of [the] Steam Machine is no longer viable,” it says. “So the prices we’re sharing today reflect the state of the world for manufacturing. Or, more accurately, it reflects the price of the components as we’ve secured them over the past six months.”

Once again, that’s a single video of one example of an old computer booting up. It’s hardly irrefutable, like anything anecdotal. I’m not even disagreeing on the consensus of newer computers being undeniably faster, this is just a flimsy evidence regardless.

And frankly I don’t care about “contributing” as you describe it. That just amounts to adhering to everyone’s idea of contribution on social media, and I’m not Sisyphus, so…

Anecdotes ≠ proof

I didn’t say the average pet was either of those things. What I basically said was that they probably meant when compared to the average pet, ferrets are much more maintenance and less sanitary than usual.

Assuming you’re not just trying to be cheeky, I think it’s safe to assume they meant relative to the average pet.

deleted by creator

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it doesn’t seem like the interviewee was ever asked about tools like code completion. The article focuses almost exclusively on ‘generative AI’ and PocketPair’s attitude towards its usage in game development. I don’t think it’s fair to consider it a dodging of questions if said questions seemingly weren’t brought up to begin with.

Besides, I doubt non-devs even really know about/understand machine learning tools in game development aside from the standard AI slop machines. For them code completion probably seems more like a standard programming tool as opposed to something more akin to an LLM, especially since most people already know about things like autocorrect through their phones and the like which is pretty similar.

I imagine by “AI” they mean strictly LLMs from OpenAI and other related sources. It’s more or less a consequence of the term being used as a catch-all by marketing teams even if it’s misleading.

They’ve for sure used machine learning tools in their development process, I have no doubt about that. I mean, that’s literally what code completion is. That’s been a thing for much longer than LLMs though, and it’s really only a supplement to the actual intentions & efforts of the devs using it. Stuff like that is useless if you don’t have any game development expertise.

I have no doubt it is with the way the prices have been with memory and gas for a while now at this point. Not necessarily Valve’s fault, but it’s gonna suck ass regardless.

I find it very strange that we hate cops so much only to immediately turn around and revere people who’ve served in the military.

They both serve the state, the only difference (and a relatively arbitrary one at that) is the police suppresses internally whereas the military suppresses externally. They’re both geared toward the exact same end of controlling the opposition.

You can say that “they’re just following orders” but I don’t think I should have to go into detail about the pitfalls of that argument.

Palantir Humanity is a global threat to humanity

FIFY