Without the "detail" of "Minecraft" you don't even know what "the data" is.
> I don't know the scale Denmark
What does that refer to? Both say "1:1 scale". Are you just trying to pad the list so you can "details" instead of "detail"?
"Terrain, glaciers, lakes, forests and dams come from swisstopo’s open geodata"
Without the context of what this even is, that the description does not provide, that might as well be someone who is bad at English trying to say something like"swisstopo’s offers open geodata about terrains, glaciers, lakes, forests and dams of Switzerland". Except if they struggled with the language they wouldn't needlessly bloat that list, either.
They didn't read it, the people rushing to its defense apparently aren't parsing it either, but I'm sure they make sure payment processing works, so at least there's that.
It's everywhere though. Not to detract from the massive problem of mass surveillance, but just recently when that data center in Russia got, and those derpy images of "stats about Russian" bots were circulated, I saw a lot of "the right-wing support is not organic" stuff.
Something is driving people into bubbles so they only talk about the other, never with. And both agree that "centrists", "normies", etc. are the most despicable of all. Seems like a recipe for something.
Idk seems like a lot of cross-aisle discussion happens in this forum. The tech world in general is somewhat a clash of cultures across the spectrum from anarchists to neofeudalists.
>Most people use password123 as password, and like using the same password on every site, so saying that's bad is a bit silly?
That's a ridiculous false equivalence and you know it.
Choosing a poor password is nowhere near analogous to the investment and energy requirement of creating completely TV-free spaces for children.
I'm questioning whether that degree of separating is consistent with the medical literature, not whether we should "do something bad because we've always done something bad"
I know there are different culture around TV usage, with some families having the TV always on and some not even owning a TV. But if not using the TV while the baby / toddler is in the same room is too costly in investment and energy requirement, I personally would spend some time reflecting on my TV usage habits.
Again, having the TV on to watch the news in the morning is not the same thing as plopping the child in front of cocomelon and letting them brainrot in the morning.
> I'm questioning whether that degree of separating is consistent with the medical literature, not whether we should "do something bad because we've always done something bad"
But that's the whole argument. It's silly because many are used to it, it's too extreme a change for people who are used to it.
If the majority of people somewhere did indeed use "Password123" everywhere and had been for decades, they'd find excuses too, one of them that it's not so bad as "Password". They might have a whole process around dealing with while not seeing the fallout.
> the investment and energy requirement of creating completely TV-free spaces for children.
Huh? You simply don't turn on the TV when the kid is there. If you want to save even more money and energy, don't get a TV.
If you say you want to go and get some milk, but then on the way to the shop waste 3 seconds to avoid an old lady instead of plowing right through her, even though it's the middle of the night and there are no witnesses, the result of your milk getting is suboptimal, and you cannot claim to primarily have been getting milk, but something else.
Also, the woman who has an AI child with Gemini said not to support artists who hate on AI, and I agree. We must crush the haters before it's too late, for they are irrational and will be left behind as we go vertical any second now.
seriously though: nothing will stop the sky from being blue, anytime soon. How I know this? Because we don't constantly talk about how the sky will always be blue. If you got the goods, you don't need the sales pitch.
I wouldn't waste so many resources and time by every remotely interesting thing (down to whatever someone may remember their older brother playing when they were young) being "made" from scratch by 50 different people, who usually don't communicate with and often don't even reference each other. "Oh hi guys, so I happened to have made this thing..." is kinda getting old.
And they will keep making money hand over fist, while anyone who worked however one long on something can have it snatched up within 5 minutes of them releasing it to the world. And then 10 more people clone that. We could enter some kind of dark age where people are more likely to try to keep even their ideas secret. If nobody gets any recognition, and putting in the work for others to clone it is just being a sucker, then people will stop doing that. And companies will simply yweigh what they invest into vs. what they can defend/attack with lawyers, or patent, or whatever. And then Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft and others can ooze over the space where there was society and community, even more so than they already did in the last quarter century.
> Google is still anal about dark mode if you're not signed in. YouTube still hinders iOS's picture-in-picture feature. Facebook still doesn't have iPad-native versions of their apps. There's so much shit in apps with billions of users that hasn't been fixed for years.
They're not selling apps, alternative apps do nothing to them. Sure they hate it, just like Twitter hates xcancel, but they could give them amnesty and servers instead and still would never be meaningfully harmed by a mere viewing tool of their data.
The limiting factor on a party’s ability to operate should be public support, not political permission. This is basic Democracy. If not, you’re giving those in power the authority to decide which political views are allowed to exist. That's Authoritarianism.
The power to determine which political groups can exist is itself anti-Democratic. People can debate if the AfD is anti-Democratic or not but if they are not allowed to exist, then the government is already anti-Democratic.
There is no such system as "political permission". Everyone is able to found a party. But of course any party has to act within the law, especially the constitution. Thus, the high court can, in a complex proceeding ban parties which are violating the constitution by their actions or even plan to overthrow the constitution.
"Political permission", oh my. It's like this "Altparteien" crap. Spooky language.
> Authoritarianism.
Capitalizing it randomly doesn't make that less projection. You think just because n% support a party that wants to abolish democracy for whatever reason, that party MuST be allowed. And if enough people support Trump being above the law, he should be. And if enough people get sick, they're suddenly healthy. That's not how anything works, not even remotely.
Alright then: most of criticism of the poll seems to written by charmless man children socialized by Minecraft mob farms. What they write only occurs in forums because they wouldn't say it to a person if they even can make eye contact, while what they complain about real people also talk about in real life with the real people who like and respect them, on top of saying it online.
They asserted something without an explanation, I responded with my position without an explanation, so I don't get what your problem is. It's not self-evident that pointing out hypocrisy isn't a valid refutation; if it were then I wouldn't have made the original comment. How would you even know that I'm a man? Maybe you looked me up, but I kinda doubt it.
I said most. Fine, add women who don't notice or mind that to it, same difference. What is not just a disrespect of boundaries, but an inability to even perceive them, to acknowledge them at all, is sticking out so glaringly in all these discussions. That people don't want to consume gen-AI stuff doesn't matter, it cannot be accepted anyway, so let's talk about how stupid they are and how that makes their choice invalid. Consent? What is consent?
> It's not self-evident that pointing out hypocrisy isn't a valid refutation
If I say drinking tons of sugary soda every day is bad for you, when I drink nothing but myself, how would my hypocrisy have a bearing on the effects of drinking soda? Yes, it's self-evident. It shouldn't even need saying because nobody should be so dishonest to even attempt it as an argument. It's the kind of dumb shit people say about other people, never to them.
> I don't know the scale Denmark
What does that refer to? Both say "1:1 scale". Are you just trying to pad the list so you can "details" instead of "detail"?
"Terrain, glaciers, lakes, forests and dams come from swisstopo’s open geodata"
Without the context of what this even is, that the description does not provide, that might as well be someone who is bad at English trying to say something like"swisstopo’s offers open geodata about terrains, glaciers, lakes, forests and dams of Switzerland". Except if they struggled with the language they wouldn't needlessly bloat that list, either.
They didn't read it, the people rushing to its defense apparently aren't parsing it either, but I'm sure they make sure payment processing works, so at least there's that.
reply