[-] JonEFive@midwest.social 16 points 1 month ago

There is an on-ramp for the highway near me that's pretty long. It's long because it's a very straight fast-moving section of highway. In other words, the on-ramp is designed to give you adequate space to get up to highway speed. The number of people who immediately merge into the first lane without getting up to speed is too damn high.

[-] JonEFive@midwest.social 14 points 4 months ago

My favorite part about those years is that we didn't have to care what Joe Rogan thought.

[-] JonEFive@midwest.social 20 points 4 months ago

So you're just out here trying to start a riot, eh?

[-] JonEFive@midwest.social 15 points 4 months ago

Exactly. USB is designed so that you can have multiple devices attached to one port. 7 slots on the PC is plenty.

And in fact, they probably already have a hub. I can't remember the last monitor that I bought that didn't have a couple USB ports on it. Put that thing to use. Webcam, USB headset/mic, keyboard and mouse can all run perfectly well off a monitor hub as can most other accessories. Save the direct ports on the mobo for things that need the bandwidth like storage devices.

[-] JonEFive@midwest.social 15 points 4 months ago

Yeah, the Jalopnik article is shamefully written. The cop wasn't shooting at his car, he was shooting at a handcuffed suspect in his car. Regardless of his terrible aim, his intent in that moment was to kill a man because he imagined that he had been shot so hard that he actually fell down. When the New York Post gets gets it more accurate, you know the journalism is bad.

What's even more horrifying about the situation is that another officer on scene also started shooting even though she didn't fully know what was going on. Oh, actually, not just an officer, she was a sargent. She didn't fully assess the situation, she just started shooting as well.

These people are no smarter and no more stable than poorly trained dogs.

[-] JonEFive@midwest.social 18 points 4 months ago
[-] JonEFive@midwest.social 20 points 5 months ago

Error: package not found

[-] JonEFive@midwest.social 14 points 6 months ago

Let me ask you this: when have you ever seen ChatGPT cite its sources and give appropriate credit to the original author?

If I were to just read the NYT and make money by simply summarizing articles and posting those summaries on my own website without adding anything to it like my own commentary and without giving credit to the author, that would rightfully be considered plagiarism.

This is a really interesting conundrum though. I would argue that AI isn't capable of original thought the way that humans are and therefore AI creators must provide due compensation to the authors and artists whose data they used.

AI is only giving back some amalgamation of words and concepts that it has been trained on. You might say that humans do the same, but that isn't exactly true. The human brain is a funny thing. It can forget, it can misremember. It can manipulate. It can exaggerate. It can plan. It can have irrational or emotional responses. AI can't really do those things on its own. It's just mimicking human behavior at best.

Most importantly to me though, AI is not capable of spontaneous thought. It is only capable of providing information that it has been trained on and only when prompted.

[-] JonEFive@midwest.social 17 points 6 months ago

I don't think the idea was to dehumanize, but rather to be more aware of the shared psychosis so many people are living in.

"They" claim that Trump won the election without any regard to facts and evidence. Imagining that "they" will suddenly change their mind if they get just one more piece of factual information is foolish considering everything we've seen so far. We must find another way to get through to "them".

[-] JonEFive@midwest.social 16 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I love completely unaware comments like this. President stable genius wasn't really all that stable nor all that much of a genius. Dude bragged about memorizing 5 words in a TV interview.

If you're willing to mention one as a disqualifying factor, you should really take a long hard look at the other candidate through the same lens.

[-] JonEFive@midwest.social 14 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

From a legal standpoint, I sort of get it. One risk of the fediverse is that data is cached locally from federated servers. That could put server owners in legal jeopardy for hosting illegal content. However, if the server is actively moderated and owners respond responsibly to take down requests, they should be okay - in the US at least, and assuming current protections for service providers remain intact.

I think a good option (if technically feasible) could be to have the choice to de-cache communities or servers that are questionable and make it so that data is transmitted live from the federated server when requested by a client. That would add load to both the local and federated servers though, especially if volume is high.

[-] JonEFive@midwest.social 20 points 9 months ago

I don't get why they don't get it. Huge numbers of people simply can't afford to invest $400 - $1000 on VR hardware. Those that can have not been adequately convinced of the value and a glorified chat room is never gonna cut it.

And then there are people like me who might have considered an Occulus before Facebook bought them, but I will never use another Facebook product as they are one of the easiest morally-bankrupt mega-corporations to boycott. None of the other vendors have a compelling product for me.

So even me, a tech leader who always hops on the cool new tech toys (I mean, I am posting on Lemmy right now after all) isn't all that interested. Which means I'm not talking it up to people I know. Now ask my friends about my opinion of the Steam Deck and whether it influenced them to buy one. This is Business 101 stuff that the multi-billion dollar company can't seem to figure out.

view more: ‹ prev next ›

JonEFive

joined 11 months ago