Cethin

Yeah, most likely, and it’ll only bind users and protect the businesses, as always.

It already is broadly accessible to the general public. They just don’t know about it or just accept using one of the cloud versions. It’s trivial to get up and running at this point.

The model should take into account income. For an open-source model it should be free. It’s using public data to produce a public product. For a for-profit model it should be paid. If they’re profiting off of public data then they should have to pay for the right to use it.

We can’t afford to make any of this. We don’t have the money for the compute required or to pay for the lawyers to make the law work for us. It should benefit the people, so it needs to change. It needs to be “expanded” (I wouldn’t call it that, rather “modified” but I’ll use your word) in that it currently only protects the wealthy and binds the poor. It should be the opposite.

OK, point to where I dismissed something. Do you think saying something is a semantic argument is dismissing it? I was making the semantic argument. I don’t know if you read the full comment, but it is totally about the semantics —about how staged and fake are not mutually exclusive. Do you think I was dismissing my own argument?

I feel like people read the word “semantics” and short-circuited. They think the word only means “pointless” or something. I used it to say that I was going to be making a semantic argument.

As with all things, nuance and context is required. I don’t think we should be taxing poor people that heavily (if at all), but does that mean I should be against taxing the ultra-wealthy more? Obviously not.

I support copyright to protect developers and not hinder users, hobbyists, or the average person. I don’t support it to only help massive companies who can manipulate the law to protect them from competition, but also not hinder them from stealing from the masses. They can afford to pay. If AI is actually as valuable as they say, the price of paying for the training data is trivial.

Copyright shouldn’t only be helpful to big businesses. It should be most helpful to the average person. We have the opposite here. I support modifying copyright law to bind big businesses and liberate individuals. I don’t need to be totally against it like you imply.

Technically even the Voyager probes are orbiting something. It isn’t a planet, and not even the sun anymore. It is orbiting Sagittarius A*, the black hole at the center of the Milky Way.

But yeah, probe is the more accurate term.

Which is why I did…

I don’t know what your point is. Clearly the argument I was making is not tautologically obvious. If it were then the comment above mine wouldn’t have existed. They said the headline was wrong. That the picture wasn’t fake, it was staged. I made the argument that staged could be argued to be fake. That isn’t tautological.

I don’t think intent matters here really. People making marvel movies aren’t intending to deceive that it’s real. That doesn’t make it not fake though.

I think if the photographer did intend to deceive then it’d clearly be fake, but saying he didn’t doesn’t give us insight into if it’s fake or not. It isn’t part of the definition.

For me, it depends on the context. Is it trying to portray something that actually happened?

That’s why, for me, I’d argue this is fake. Yes, the fire is real, but it’s trying to portray that he ignited from the lava. He didn’t. It was faked.

It’s a real photo representing something that isn’t real. Saying the headline that says it’s fake is wrong is taking a step too far into certainty. I wouldn’t say it’s wrong, even if the word choice could better represent the truth. That’s my point. I’m not arguing it is fake, but that calling it fake isn’t necessarily incorrect.

That’s literally what I said…

It’s an argument of semantics though. Neither are definitely correct. Most people would agree that adding effects in photoshop is “fake” but it still produces an image. Is it still “fake” when you use physical means to manipulate the image, like they used to do before CGI? If so, isn’t this fake? If not, what makes digitally manipulation fake? I can argue either direction, so the headline isn’t wrong —it just might not be the best choice of words.

I would say fake is accurate, as the intent is to look like the lava made it combust, which it didn’t. The flames are real, but the combustion from the lava is fake.

I get it, but maybe there’s a reason?

When I lost my faith in religion I was annoying because it had wasted so much of my time and effort, as well as causing stress and creating issues where none existed. I wanted other people to feel as free as I did, and it was obvious that it was more reasonable to switch after I had, and it was easy.

When I lost my faith in Microsoft I was annoying because it had wasted so much of my time and effort, as well as causing stress and creating issues where none existed. I wanted other people to feel as free as I did, and it was obvious that it was more reasonable to switch after I had, and it was easy.

Maybe just test your reasoning. Try Linux, or test the boundaries of your faith. See how it feels. Maybe other people have a point, as annoying as they may be.

Personally, I don’t push the religion thing anymore. I don’t feel like it does much good and is a waste of my time. Pushing Linux though? Yeah, that does do good, for the people switching and for the ecosystem. The more people move off of Windows and other closed platforms the more open things become, and the more choices consumers get.

That sounds horrible. That’s probably my biggest issue with modern media. It’s all too scared to stand on its own, so it has to reference, or tie into, existing media. “Nostalgia bait.”

It didn’t start with the MCU, but it was definitely made worse by it. They had the post-credit scene where it referenced something else, then they just start having references in the movie. Now all media it seems is 80% references, and we’re supposed to be excited about it. It drives me crazy.

Yeah, I was interested before it released, but everything I heard about it after made me not bother.

Better tools, as in rendering technology and hardware, not as in like AI or something that would modify it. If they do it they need to keep the original format and only re-render the CGI components.

Yeah, like I said, it’s the content that’s bad. You could have a phone without any of these issues. Mine mostly doesn’t, because I don’t use any of these media services or social media, besides Lemmy if you count that.

Is this a Rings of Power joke? I haven’t watched it, so I really don’t know.

LotR has been done a few times. The Peter Jackson one is just so good that no one wants to be compared to it though. I’d argue that even Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit felt so bad because the LotR trilogy was so good. (It was also just bad, but the comparison made it feel even worse.)

If it’s old and people still enjoy consuming it, it’s probably good. If it’s new and people consume it, it’s still unproven. The thing about “classics” isn’t that anything old is a classic. Anything that stands the test of time is. Old music wasn’t better we just stopped listening to the bad songs. Old books aren’t better, we just stopped reading the bad ones. Old movies aren’t better, we just stopped watching the bad ones.