Somebody is targeting this Horowitz person I do not know nor care about.
They dug and dug, and found something to attack them with. A connection by investing into a company allegedly doing something illegal and deeply immoral.
Let me put extra emphasis: Horowitz isn't allegedly doing something illegal and immoral. A company he is investing on is allegedly doing something illegal and immoral.
We're supporting this lynching campaign by tolerating it and giving it attention.
Which is a good thing for the non-porn SD world, because a lot of the improvements from the base models in human anatomy non-porn-focussed third-party models come from merging porn-focussed models in with other trained models.
(Which parallels the role of nudes is other visual arts domains.)
is this why m2 mackbook pro has such terrible pixel response times? swiping work spaces becomes a blurry mess, not seen displays this bad since we moved from CRT to LCD
The academic internet of the 90s is so far gone and while we're seeing a lot of magic lately, it's magic available to literally everybody for any and every purpose.
We're rapidly seeing how boring and disappointing that is :(
You can find a plethora of critical viewpoints on Hacker News and the various blogs it links to which are well cognizant of the dangers of the tech industry.
The problem isn’t that Wired is critical, it’s that they’ve gone weirdly reactionary and their writing has gone so mass market dumbed down that Some Random Guy’s Blog is likely to have a better written and researched viewpoint.
Changing the conditions of employment unilaterally is exploitative, especially within a system in which employment is required to maintain access to health care.
No it does not qualify as exploitative - is it a tough adjustment? Probably yes, exploitative? No.
Your health care example has little weight unless you are in a one employer town as you can always find other employers if you don't like one as much as that process isn't great.
Out of curiosity, what would qualify as exploitative behavior in your opinion?
Only situations where people have literally zero alternatives? Only situations where other employment alternatives meet your personal subjective threshold of "worse"?
Do you think things like removing "blacklist" from open source projects are meaningfully related to marginalized folks' struggles to get afforded basic dignity?
I think removing "master" is probably just virtue signaling, but so what? It's trivial for me to switch my projects to "main", and then I can get back to my life. It's a weird hill to die on.
You can't appease arbitrary and meaningless demands.
There will just be more of them.
So you remove "master" and "blacklist", then next week it's "brown bag" and "merit".
So instead we pick a reasonable point, draw a line in a sand and indicate a hard boundary. We say no. We will not play a game of trying to appease arbitrary demands.
If those people are saying it is, then you gotta take their word for it.
But it is beside the point! Whether or not any given effort is actually meaningful or not will be always hard to measure. But the world around prompts us to at least try, and making light of people trying to do something good, however wrongheaded it might turn out to be, is always a jerk move.
This tendency to try and call out things like this is always so illogical. Those who protest, always seem to protest a little to much, and I can never understand how they don't see that and how bad it makes them look!
So according to you, there is no limit at which one is allowed to say "this is absurd, stop"? Note there is no upper bound for potential absurdity. Below someone suggested "field" and was downvoted, presumably because that would be too absurd. But a few years ago censoring "blacklist" was equally absurd. You offer a finger, and over time, they demand your hand.
I don't know, saying something is absurd sounds more like the conclusion of some argument, and something possibly constructive if there is in fact an argument behind that. But just using these issues to make fun of people different than you feels distinct from that, no?
For the other things, I am not sure what you mean. Who is the "they" here who is demanding your hand? What makes you feel you are on some certain side against a monolithic force? Does that seem like a rational thing to feel, considering the broad and abstract concepts we are dealing with here?
This point that there is something at stake with changing the terms we use, the idea that fingers are being offered, is pretty weird to me, no offense. For me, it doesn't really make a difference if use one term or the other, as long as I am understood. I don't feel bad if I learn that a term I use turns out to be possibly offensive, I just adjust in the future so that I don't possibly offend.
Like beyond that, who cares? What even is there to care about that much?
Again, whatever you want to say to argue about this, just know that it looks really bad to most people who are not in your circle. This is especially true when you choose to make such a fuss about such small thing as what (arbitrary) signifier we use to designate one thing or another. It cannot ever come across as some righteous fight for justice/common-sense or whatever side you feel like you are on, because its simply not a fight anyone with a lucid mind would think is worthwhile.
This is the sort of argument that seems silly to your kids, because there's no reason not to.
You're arguing from a place of "why?" against "why not?", it's not some grand civilizational struggle, and it's completely off-topic for this article, especially escalating it. Very woke.
It's basically effortless to implement such changes and helps foster a more inclusive and educated online community. Why can't we aim to right all wrongs? Just because there's more pressing issues doesn't mean we can't tackle all forms of injustice.
> helps foster a more inclusive and educated online community
No, I think it does absolutely not help with that. It only creates the illusion of progress and of having done something effective, when the only achievement was to tread the euphemism treadmill.
I don't think any of the code of conduct stuff is being driven by marginalized folks - indeed it's usually a stick that people from privileged backgrounds use to beat those from more marginalized ones. Which, well, you have to laugh or cry.
I think performative acts in a one-upsmanship race to who can be the most socially conscious are excellent joke fodder. In other words, the topics of these stupid code of conduct arguments have nothing at all to do with anybody's actual struggle or dignity, but just a sign that folks are running out of easy real battles to fight so they're making up new ones because they've not got much better to do.
It's a virtue signalling treadmill. Demanding term X to be banned, because it is allegedly harmful, signals the unusually high virtue of the demander. But as soon as the term is actually banned, there isn't any more virtue to be gained from being against it, so some other term has to be declared harmful next. Ad infinitum.
There are still plenty of real injustices and other problems in the world. Attempting to change any of them is hard work, because it puts you up against real entrenched interests who will spend real resources to maintain the existing arrangement. Whereas "speaking out", language policing, and fighting minor online injustices require much less energy. Doubly so for nitpicking to design some perfect system of bureaucratic code that's supposed to stand in for human empathy and judgement.
The maniacs who claimed that something had a price on a market and cost to create claim that this means value was created.
From an ecological perspective, nonsense. Economically, somewhat sound.
Misappropriated rare resources cause destroyed nature for the reason that capitalism said it was sound.
Every joule can only be spent once, but and as long as there is no moral coercion, there is a profit to be made from pillaging it from the supply.
Because in the US a lack of explicit laws against something is typically interpreted as legal support. See pretty much any disruptive business mired in legal controversy. It's a cultural difference to many other countries where just because there isn't a law against something doesn't mean people will jump at the chance to exploit it at scale.
Uber is perfectly legal here in Spain, but they're regulated as regular VTC vehicles. Uber can't arbitrarily lower the price. It has to be within some percentage of regular taxis for same level of service. Taxis have an advantage though because they have exclusive access to certain areas.
Someone once told me it costs like $60K to register a crypto as a security... A chicken and egg problem. How will you get $60K without an ITO? Yet if you have an ITO in order to raise the $60K that you need to register your ITO legally, you're already in breach.
It has similar vibes as the US law which only allows accredited investors to invest in fast growing startups... 'To protect mom and pop investors' yeah right. Is there even a single person in the entire country who actually believes that?
Suppose you want to turn your business into a publicly traded company. If you don’t already have enough cash to pay for the process, you raise money from accredited investors (VC funds, angels, whatever). Then you do the paperwork. Then, when everything is approved, you get to sell shares to the general public. The overall process has been well established for a long time.
For some reason, people seem to think an ITO should change all the rules, and that first you sell to the general public, and then you figure everything else out (assuming you don’t just take the money and run). This is IMO nonsense.
It's the legal advice and accounting specialists required to produce an adequate prospectus that's the big cost. But again: if you're raising millions, it seems not unreasonable to front some of that, even as personal debt, in order to prove "skin in the game" and that it's not a scam.
EOS raised $4.2 billion dollars. You're telling me they can't front 60k?
