My thoughts exactly

Ahhhh, are you the same person that’s posted this before? This pic has made the rounds a few times.

I’m not sure if you’re mildly irritated at the compilations themselves, or that the “franchises” involved went way too long.

I’m a f an of compilations tbh. It’s a solid way to snag the whole schmear cheap (usually). I can just choose to ignore the ones I don’t like, same as I did when a given series started going to shit.

Spider-Man though, that’s a different kettle of fish. Comics run for decades, lifetimes in some cases. Movies about the same characters are going to be as likely to have extended production, with as many ups and downs as the comics do (and there are some horrible runs of even the best comic titles).

I’m with you on the laziness and risk aversion that makes 9 American pie movies happen. Or most franchises that start in a similar way. The first was a great movie, but it really didn’t need a sequel, much less multiplies that not only abandoned the characters and what little storyline there was, but stopped putting in effort to good writing.

Not that a successful one-off can’t spawn a decent franchise, it’s just that studios don’t put in the investment to make it happen.

Look at the Bond series. While there have been plenty of stinkers, it was approached as a long term thing early on and has also managed to have some great movies even as it aged. No high art or anything, but still some solid escapist action.

Bad body lol.

Between arthritis, a deteriorating back, and the extra clean-up and work involved in maintaining bread making (be it sourdough or with commercial yeast), it was just too many spoons.

I keep hoping my household will settle down enough that I have the inner and physical resources to get back to it though! There’s so much peace in the process.

Hypothetically, having access to older gene stock could make sense. As would a source of disposable labor. Or repopulation after a catastrophe.

Plenty of reasons.

But I can about damn guarantee it wouldn’t be just because they want to be nice

Ngl, my sense of humor runs dark as fuck, so I got a laugh out of this.

Which might piss people off, but IDGAF. I’ve had brains on my hands before, I no longer have to GAF about others’ opinions of my humor

Damn, I miss making bread. Just seeing the title makes me want to restart my sourdough culture

Well, there’s actually been research into it.

Since that shit is dry as hell, and there’s available articles about it, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/fulfillment-any-age/202202/why-it-feels-so-good-confess

This one gives a nice overview.

So, I’d say it’s pretty realistic to say that “confession” has mental health benefits.

That being said, true anonymity is going to be vital if you’re going to try to build something online. Not just for the people that might want to use it, but for you too. You really don’t want the legal issues if someone were to confess on your service and it became part of trial evidence. You may be thinking it’s not a big deal, that it’ll never happen, but it does happen already with social media.

The less you’ll be able to provide, the less hassle you’ll have. So keep that in mind. Reddit, Facebook, VPNs, they all deal with legal requests regularly, but they have legal departments to handle those to keep a barrier between the people running things and the consequences of users’ actions/words.

Me? No fucking way I’d even confess to jaywalking online, period. And I have never done that (that’s actually true, I’ve never been in a situation where it was useful. Small towns and infrequent visits to cities ftw?). I’d also advise anyone else to never do so.

Also, if you’re a priest/minister and your religion has a confessional seal, you have pretty robust legal protection about not having to break it, in many places. Therapists also have a degree of confidentiality that they’re legally required to maintain. Your online service has neither. So you’ll also have responsibilities above and beyond what therapists or ministers have. Well, you may, since local laws vary, and I’ve never heard of a lot of legal precedent around mandatory reporting for online services. But even if you aren’t currently required to report a range of things, not doing so might open you up to lawsuits and/or eager prosecutors looking to set a precedent.

I guess what it comes down to is: yeah, it could help people. But better you than me

Gotcha :)

Yeah, I think it comes down to what I said. No good reason to try and compete when they could scrape all the data that they would have wanted without having to build their own.

It isn’t like any of the big social media companies wanted competition anyway. They wanted to dominate their niche. Twitter for short messages publicly transmitted. Instagram for image based posting. Facebook for mixed media sharing, etc. You find a niche, dominate it, then leverage that dominance into cash flow, usually via ads.

If you go into the niche someone else already dominates, it’s an uphill struggle. You’re better off just waiting and either buying out the other companies, or otherwise gaining access to what they have that’s valuable.

Hell, that’s meta’s playbook for sure, that’s what they keep doing.

Google did try to kinda horn in on the Facebook style social media, can’t remember what it was called, but it flopped and they killed it. You’d think their greed for data for ad targeting might have made it attractive to at least try, but the fact that they eventually just paid reddit for access after a bit of a stink shows they had previously been hoovering it for free. Why invest millions or even billions when it’s already available without the investment?

I think that part of it was also that reddit didn’t start as a forum. It was digg mark2. A link aggregator. It kept expanding its scope and turned into a forum. It was a big deal when comments were added to reddit, a major shift in how it worked. A lot of people hated it.

That’s my take anyway.

I think the other comments assume you mean a big tech focused forum.

But did you actually mean a big tech forum, as in something like a meta owned and operated version of reddit?

If so, I suspect that it comes down to timing and relative benefit. By the time anyone realized reddit was going to be what it became, trying to edge into that kind of threaded ecosystem just wasn’t useful to them.

Google, meta, whatever, all they had to do to get the benefits that reddit could have given them was to scrape reddit. Trying to create a competitor would have been pointless.

Why are they saying it’s stupid?

The idea is solid, if not exactly new territory in terms of the rich young superhero thing.

So, if that’s what they’re griping about, screw 'em.

If they’re saying that trying to create a comic at all is stupid, they’re stupid. Nothing wrong with a creative endeavour, though if you aren’t realistically planning ahead on how to make it happen, that would be pretty stupid. Anyone can do their own thing if they have the talent to actually crank out the art and writing (most people struggle with one or the other tbh). But getting it published is a very difficult proposition. Indie artists struggle like hell, even if they do their own site and distribution.

So, if you haven’t planned that far ahead, they might be right that your plan is stupid.

However, if you’ve actually gotten some pages done, and they’ve read it and think it’s stupid, it comes down to how much you value their opinion about comics. Being real, some people’s opinions are shit on a given subject, so if theirs are known to be bad, then fuck 'em. But if they tend to have reliable quality takes on comics (or the craft that goes into them), maybe they’re right, no way for us to know.

But nah man, there’s nothing stupid about this kind of project in and of itself. Nor is the basic concept stupid.

Ima echo paragone@lemmy.world, and add that it simply isn’t as good.

So, like paragone said, the built in obsolescence of Bluetooth headphones by most makers is total bullshit and the world can’t afford that way of doing things.

But holy shit, to get decent sound out of Bluetooth, you have to go pretty damn high end compared to what you can get on a budget wired because there’s extra shit involved. Maybe someday Bluetooth will reach full parity in quality or transmission (hell, it isn’t that far away if you ignore my picky ears), but when you tack on at least an extra thirty to fifty bucks (based on my last comparison shopping of wired vs Bluetooth from companies with equivalent models in both forms) just for the privilege of weaker quality and the annoyances of dropped connections here and there, even going high end isn’t a sure thing.

Ngl, I have a pair of anker soundcore buds a friend gave me that I fucking love, and a sennheiser Bluetooth over ear headset that’s both comfy and reliable alongside better than acceptable music quality. So I’m not shitting on Bluetooth audio entirely. I don’t hate the idea, obviously. It’s the execution and the fucking insistence of it on phones that reaches hate levels.

But, ignoring that, testing similar models of audio specific headphones side by side, wired vs Bluetooth, there is a detectable difference. And I’m middle aged with ears that have taken a beating via loud music and occasional firearm discharge without good earpro. So if I’m picking up a loss in clarity and soundstage with otherwise similar models, there’s a gap.

Then you gotta deal with incompatibilities with older audio sources. There’s some flat out amazing fucking gear for budget audio out there that’s going to require an extra piece of gear to use the best Bluetooth cans. There’s also amazing old gear that isn’t budget, but when you’re buying that stuff, you won’t blink at the extra gear. But you do still need it for no benefit to the sound itself

Damn though, the freedom of movement is damn nice

Yeah, yeah, they can still go fuck themselves

It is awesome that you left the previous comment in place. Mad props!

Well, I’m not a code monkey, between dyslexia and an aging brain. But if it’s anything like the tiny bit of coding I used to be able to do (back in the days of basic and pascal), you don’t really have to pore over every single line. Only time that’s needed is when something is broken. Otherwise, you’re scanning to keep oversight, which is no different than reviewing a human’s code that you didn’t write.

Look at it like this; we automated assembly of machines a long time ago. It had flaws early on that required intense supervision. The only difference here on a practical level is about how the damn things learned in the first place. Automating code generation is way more similar to that than llms that generate text or images that aren’t logical by nature.

If the code used to train the models was good, what it outputs will be no worse in scale than some high school kid in an ap class stepping into their first serious challenges. It will need review, but if the output is going to be open source to begin with, it’ll get that review even if the project maintainers slip up.

And being real, lutris has been very smooth across the board while using the generated code so far. So if he gets lazy, it could go downhill; but that could happen if he gets lazy with his own code.

Another concept that I am more familiar with, that does relate. Writing fiction can take months. Editing fiction usually takes days, and you can still miss stuff (my first book has typos and errors to this day because of the aforementioned dyslexia and me not having a copy editor).

My first project back in the eighties in basic took me three days to crank out during the summer program I was in. The professor running the program took an hour to scan and correct that code.

Maybe I’m too far behind the various languages, but I really can’t see it being a massively harder proposition to scan and edit the output of an llm.

Yeah, this is actually one of the good things a technology like this can do.

He’s dead right, in terms of slop, if it’s someone with training and experience using a tool, it doesn’t matter if that tool is vim or claude. It ain’t slop if it’s built right.

For anyone coming along and starting to get riled up…

Go for it! Lemme get some popcorn!

I couldn’t finish the article without signing up, and can’t be arsed to bypass that right now.

That being said, “the dictionary” has always lagged behind common usage. Until a language dies (and one can argue that it’s damn near impossible as long as a dictionary and grammary exist for a posts language), a dictionary that isn’t backed by a formal system making it proscriptive can never get ahead.

I’d argue that even then, what happens is that a rift forms between the formal, official dialect and the living language.

Look at the languages that do have a body of some sort keeping a formal set of rules and pronunciations. None of them are exclusively used, even by the people operating that body. Well, afaik, anyway, I’ve never looked at every single one and every single person involved in that regulatory field.

I can be a bit of a stickler for defaulting to an established dictionary when usages, spellings, or pronunciations are contested in usage, but the truth is that any given language is going to be “right” only when that “right” is what is actually being used by a significant portion of its users.

Ain’t ain’t a word, but except it is. Look at that again. That’s a perfectly valid sentence in a local dialect. If you change it to: ain’t ain’t a word, but it turned into one, then you get a sentence that’s valid everywhere English is spoken. Because ain’t wasn’t a word that was established in usage by a majority, but it is now. Everyone knows that the contraction implied by ain’t, ain’t a contraction in the usual sense, and they know that enough people use it that it wouldn’t matter if it were in dictionary at all, because it’s a living word.

Besides, part of the beauty of language is in how we can make all these weird sounds convey meanings that are actually just mental frameworks for thoughts and ideas. “Box” isn’t the same thing as a container, it’s a bunch of sounds a bunch of people agreed to use when sharing information about a container. That’s fucking glorious.

It’s also glorious that not only do synonyms exist, but that there are so fucking many of them. You want to say something is big? Large, giant, huge, massive, positively Brobdingnagian! That list can keep going too.The list of big synonyms is gargantuan!

But guess what? If we want to make up words, we can! Ever hear of a vorpal sword? It was a sound from a poem in a piece of fiction that turned into an imaginary thing in a game! And there’s prodigious amounts of people that know exactly which story and which game that is, and what a vorpal sword does, and the word didn’t exist until one crazy bastard made a poem out of nonsense, then shoved it in a book.

Anyone not know what a muggle is?

Guess what!

Every single fucking word I just used was imaginary at some point. They’re all made up, they’re all just random sounds that caught on. Ask deadpool what “?donde estas la biblioteca¿” means. His answer is just as right, in one sense, as the more standard one, you pumpkin fucker.

So, no, dictionaries can’t keep up. We don’t want them to, because then we lose the life of language, and I fucking love that life

A woo-woo aside only loosely connected to the actual article. Loosely is being generous tbh.

But I’ve always loved the idea that there isn’t any matter, that everything we think of as matter is just the energy of the universe rippling around, and our minds, our true selves, are just a pattern of ripples that eventually fades and dissipates into the background noise of the cosmos.

There’s a grace and poetry to the idea for me, no matter how inaccurate and hippy-dippy it may be.

But that idea, due to it being poetry and wishful, gives me a strange comfort in the face of the infinite, unknowable scale of the universe. It also gives me a strange comfort on the small scale of the horror and dread that mortal life contains within that nigh eldritch scale of the universe. If we were really just light bouncing off of other light and making sparkles and ripples that we call the self, that’s a thing of beauty that makes all the ugly we see while our pattern is held together a little more bearable.

Frankie Stein, of course. Monster on the outside, bubblegum on the inside.