It goes a bit further than just not berating. People often get defensive when you criticise something they like, which makes it harder to argue due to the other side suddenly treating the discussion as a fight. However by saying “it’s not for me” in a rather roundabout way you shift the focus away from “is it good/bad” and more about whether the other can empathise with your reasoning, and in turn reflect your view onto themselves and maybe realize that they didn’t notice something about their usage and feelings about AI that you already did.

Ah, sorry, I didn’t mean ignorant in a general way, but to the critiques on AI/dangers of AI OP referred to in their post. I’ll edit my comment.

Maybe trying to be objective is the wrong choice here? After all, it might sound preachy to those who are ignorant to the dangers of AI. Instead, it could be better to stay subjective in hopes to trigger self-reflection.

Here are some arguments I would use for my own personal ‘defense’:

• I like to do the work by myself because the challenge of doing it by my own is part of the fun, especially when I finally get that ‘Eureka!’ moment after especially tough ones. When I use AI, it just feels halfhearted because I just handed it to someone else, which doesn’t sit right with me.
• when I work without AI, I tend to stumble over things that aren’t really relevant to what I’m doing, but are still fun to learn about and might be helpful sometimes else. With AI, I’m way too focused on the end result to even notice that stuff, which makes the work feel even more annoying.
• when I decide to give up or realize I can’t be arsed with it, I usually seek out communities or professionals, because that way it’s either done professionally or I get a better sense of community, but overall feel like I’m supporting someone. With AI, I don’t get that feeling, but rather I only feel either inferior for not coming up with a result as fast as the AI does or frustrated because it either spews out bullshit or doesn’t get the point I’m aiming for.

What would be your motivator to pay human artists? Why sign any?

I mean, the internet has given artists a way to spread their works and profit off them without any major record labels. So what artists will lose by that are exploitative companies whose only benefit is that your music will be sold by major retailers as physical CDs or Downloads.

They took the code of Scratch 3 and claim to have made some improvements on it to make it run faster alongside some other improvements (such as rising the maximum framerate to 60 from Scratch’s 30). However, there doesn’t seem to be any proof that this is the case, so it could perform exactly like Scratch 3 without any improvements.

What is an actual bonus is that this software offers actual installation files, whereas normal Scratch 3 is only available through a browser and by downloading it from the App/Play/Windows store. It’s nice to be able to not use these storefronts because a) it means that you have a little more control over the software you use and b) you can use Scratch 3 offline on Linux as well with this.

I just checked it out. Apparently it is a fork of Scratch and supposedly applies some optimisation to it, which I would take with a grain of salt without any benchmarks.

I think the biggest advantage is the proper offline mode, as Scratch 3 doesn’t have classic installation files (and therefore no Mac and Linux installations).

Generally I think immutable distros are the best entry-level distros for newcomers. Stops people from accidentally bricking their system.

Honestly, I stopped reading after

The power creep just got way too out of control for my liking, and while I know that the power creep always existed, I feel like the adventures before showed how you can tell a good story without just brute force. Plus, even with their superhuman abilities, their struggles still felt relatable. And with what happened before and right after the aforementioned turning point, it felt like that would be left in the dust.

It’s both funny and sad how they sort of threw around money when they were swimming in it, such as the acquiring of the Valhalla engine, which turned out to only consist of the rendering part of the engine during the buyout, yet at the same time don’t seem to be brave enough to try to make something else than Payday 2. Overkill’s The Walking Dead was basically a Payday 2 clone, and Payday 3 is the official successor to it, making both fall under the shadow of its still running cash cow. Even their cooperation with Lion Game Lion to make a spiritual successor/spinoff with Raid:WW2 seems harebrained, as it would immediately draw comparisons to PD2, which it could never really overcome.

Honestly, it’s odd how they just didn’t make Payday 3 a straightforward port of Payday 2 into the Unreal engine and have a smaller side project to keep the creative juices flowing as the player base slowly switches to the new engine.

Yes, after the reign of Stalin, where Khrushchev took over, the USSR deescalated the Cold War, yet it was the actions taken by Stalin’s regime that let the conflict start to begin with, with the USSR not retreating from Iran as the other Allied Forces did, the threat of force in the Turkish Straits crisis, comparing Churchill to Adolf Hitler and breaking the Yalta Agreement by meddling with the 1947 Polish elections.

Also, the article seems to be paywalled, so I have to see when I get around to reading it.

It might be that my comparison wasn’t the most accurate, since my main insight in the USSR is through the DDR, which was mainly a pawn in the face off between the superpowers at that time, and thus was a hotspot for tensions around that time. And I do believe that the wealth disparity wasn’t as extreme as in capitalist countries, yet it says little about what the actual average living conditions were compared to other countries. Also, corruption doesn’t always have a wealth disparity as a result. After all, people can also get corrupt due to self-preservation, which I think is most evident under Stalin’s later rule, after his wife committed suicide.

Yet I can’t really agree that it was “killed off” during its downfall, as I have my doubts that it would have survived much longer than it did without its subnations separating from it. The only way I could imagine it surviving would have been if they “licked their own wounds” after the war, so to speak, recuperate from their losses instead of its rapid militarisation that it gone through to keep up with the USA in order to win a dick measuring contest.

I am not so sure if the dissolution was really avoidable. I like to use the DDR as a comparison, as it does resemble the USSR post-war pretty well, due to the USSR pretty much dismantling factories in their occupation zone to compensate their own losses only to stop that as they realized the other occupation forces were strengthening their own zones and so reverting their course, leaving the then formed DDR in a similar state as the government that spawned in.

During the time of its existence, the DDR suffered from supply shortages to the point where the Trabant, the most driven car in the DDR had a chassis made out cotton-based thermoset. Yet at the same time government paranoia was at it’s peak, where the MfS (the East German equivalent of the KGB) coerced and blackmailed citizen to aid in the espionage and recruit them as informants against their neighbours, just to collect as much information on their citizen as possible in case they are suspected to be traitors as more and more people tried to flee the extreme poverty they had to live with. Yet the party was riddled with corruption, as the last generation of DDR politicians realized as the old ones resigned and allowed a new wave to take the lead, seeing the actual numbers of the debt of the government and the state of the country had to face with, even though the older generation of politicians were initially against Gorbachev’s Perestroika plan.

I think this level of hidden debt, corruption and paranoia/secrecy was the reason why Gorbachev claimed that the Chernobyl disaster caused the downfall of USSR, as it was the epitome of what plagued the whole nation ever since the war. Nobody wanted to speak out the truth for their fear of their status or even their lives, as they either get painted as a saboteur or gets silenced by those who would be targeted as well if the truth came out. Getting rid of that issue would be nothing less of a government dissolution, because no one could be really trusted.

And even then, editing out unwanted mutations can still stifle society as a whole and may be morally the wrong choice. For example, what about eradicating autism due to the immense pain these individuals receive due to our society? Is it better to change our society to accommodate people afflicted with it or wipe out the genes responsible for it if it is easier? And if we choose the latter, where is the cutoff point? Can we even tell when we crossed that line, where our drive to improve ourselves ended being done out of mercy and began to be about creating the model citizen?

Though this solution also seems to be very flawed, doesn’t it? You basically trust another company to manage your child’s smartphone and granting it full access to it. Furthermore, that doesn’t stop predators, as they could still arrange meetups with their unknowing victims. And even if it captures text messages, kids would be discouraged to use their phone due to their fear of their parents disproving of their friends or their communication to them. Instead, they’d more likely learn the use of “burner phones” by getting a factory-reset phone and using that one instead.

It’s the sort of ham-fisted attempt expected by parents that blame their kids for their mistakes instead of their parenting.

Could you explain how it doesn’t undermine your argument?

I think the term you are looking for is “Deep Net”, although it originally meant websites that weren’t indexed by web searches.

Checked his credentials of Mike Booth. He seems to have come from Turtle Rock Studios, not the veterans of Valve. Departed the company before Evolve and worked for Blizzard.

However, considering that the main success of L4D and L4D2 lies in the tech provided by the core team of Valve, it seems unlikely that it will have a similar success as L4D, although some games managed to capture a similar feeling to it without having worked at Valve, so there’s still a chance, albeit a slim one.

The only issues I had with Laptops so far were the WIFI drivers, as some distros, such as Debian, don’t have them OOTB. I think especially the major players with a focus on recent patches however, such as fedora, OpenSUSE, Arch and many others can install them rather easily during the installation.

Still, Bazzite is pretty much one of the best Gaming distros out there. All drivers are included with the installation (you select which Hardware you have before downloading) and the OS itself is immutable, so you don’t have to worry about damaging the OS in any way. The only downside is that it exclusively uses Flatpaks, which does have a few problems regarding interoperability between programs (e.g. Firefox doesn’t allow KeePassXC to interact with the KeePass add-on). However, I would recommend Flatpaks either way, since it adds better security and reliability, since you don’t have to worry about an update breaking programs.

However, if you don’t need that interoperability, I’d say there is little reason not to use it if you want to play games. And when a game doesn’t work, protondb usually gives enough hints to how to fix these issues. Generally, I had less issues with games on there compared to other distros (e.g. OpenSUSE).

Not only that, but they are crucial for network security. VPNs allow all network traffic (with a few necessary exceptions) to be routed through the company’s network and benefit from its security measures, mainly monitoring traffic for suspicious and malicious behaviour. Without it, finding compromised PCs is much harder and enforcing company policies regarding web use would be impossible outside the office.