dmamills

A metric I'd be interested in is the number of clients you can convince to use this slop.

The Gorillaz are actually real people though? You do realize The Archies didn't write "Sugar, Sugar"?

Or it could be that it doesn't fit into the age demographics. Not many studies on child behaviour are conducted at the Bingo Hall.

I can echo your sentiment. Art is the manifestation of creativity, and to create any good art you need to train in whatever medium you choose. For the decade I've been a professional programmer, I've always argued that writing code was a creative job.

It's been depressing to listen to people pretend that LLM generated code is "the same thing". To trivialize the thoughtful lessons one has learned honing their craft. It's the same reason the Studio Ghilbi AI image trend gives me the ick.

This is just another example of how American Police budgets have gotten out of hand. A budget that allows for a municipal police force to install 721 "AI powered" recording devices. That are purchased from a publicly traded company, and deployed in areas guaranteed to funnel people into the for profit privatized prison system.

What a wonderful use of tax dollars. Protecting and serving the path to a better society.

> CITIZEN, you have been struck by an autonomous vehicle! I have reported the impact data to help us improve our platform. Thank you for your feedback.

Certainly not, and I don't mean to speak for you.

But lets just say that I exist within the FANG dystopia where at any moment I can be wrangled into a meeting with a half dozen people, that if you actually consider the salaries, headcount, and time, racks up to hundreds, maybe thousands of dollars burned. For the takeaway that the modal should be fullscreen, or that we are dramatically adjusting our "design system", or whatever may have been so mission critical. Real tangible goods.

But perhaps what I do is worth more, I mean, we are talkin' computers here! we are the true craftsmen!

> What am I missing?

Likely a disrespect for a living wage for a common craftsman, and a misunderstanding of what quality goods actually are.

Certainly a lot of kids here survived on cheap $25 jansports, but did the people making them?

If you can consider a Mascot something non-exclusive to the brand, introduced fourteen years after the release of the Xbox, and brought on through an acquisition, then sure.

Aside from the PS2, Nintendo owns the top 2 to 4 best selling consoles of all time. All three of them are cartridge based, included their most recent console.

They may have been outsold in the fifth generation of consoles, but first party software gave them longevity that their competitors wish they could replicate. Where is Master Chief and who, Crash Bandicoot, now?

I thought that the money was "in my data". That harvesting the viewing/browsing habits offered an insight that not even my "wife or priest" could trade in value to Google.

Now I have to pay to surrender that data?

I've heard when a snake eats it's own tail you should try rubbing alcohol.

three billion dollars in revenue last year

It's your definition that is misunderstood, not the oxymoron.

> Shadow banning, also called stealth banning, hellbanning, ghost banning or comment ghosting, is the practice of blocking or partially blocking a user or the user's content from some areas of an online community in such a way that the ban is not readily apparent to the user

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_banning

Undercut competition by burning raised capital. Then once you've got the market share, you boil the frogs you gathered. I believe the euphemism around these parts is "disruption".

There is nothing on your site to determine how you have defined "high quality clothes"?

Based on the stock images, I'm confused as to why would I pay a subscription fee for the right to buy your "signature" Gildan brand t-shirt?

> That I can't meaningfully defend someone's ability to discuss their ideas with other willing participants if I don't actually agree with the content of their message?

Not exactly. The implication is that it is all you can do. You have to wrap up all this hateful content and cover it in a blanket of "free speech" so that it is palatable for you to defend. There is no defending the actual content, just the abstract idea that should be allowed to be said.

Forgive me for not making my context clear in the original comment. I believe every human has value, I believe producing hateful content diminishes that value, and is not a productive activity.

I'm not sure what to say about the last bit of your comment. My opinion certainly doesn't matter. The legal rights of the companies' that are being asked to host this content is what matters. In section 2.6.7 and 2.7 of Zayo's Acceptable Use policy, they use open ended language so they can express their right to control what customers they do business with.

https://www.zayo.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/zayo-accepta...

It's lovely of you to suggest that I'm "too far gone". That me, or people like me, might actually be the issue here. I suppose it's one of your only options at this point? What are you going to do? Actually defend the "legally discussed" content at the heart of this conversation?

I certainly believe that racist and homophobic content has absolutely zero value, and the people that produce it are diminishing their own self-worth. I believe spending your finite existence to disparage others for things they can't control is not a worthy use of time.

If that is the definition of too far gone, then I'm happy to be here.

The internet is certainly built on "peering" relationships. So when someone finds out that you host a website where you spray your "white replacement theories", or your forum members spend a near decade documenting and mocking the existence of dozens of human beings.

You shouldn't be surprised when people don't want to be in a relationship with you anymore, or do business with you anymore.

Are ten thousand homophobic racists posters supposed to be more valuable than one?

What is zero times ten thousand?

> This whole episode is a test to see if we're ruled by codified principles or by angry people.

Here's the thing: No it isn't. This isn't a test, a crusade, the last dying breaths of free speech, or any other hyperbolic pearl clutching nonsense.

This is about a man having a hard time getting someone to consistently host his racist, homophobic, and downright deplorable content.

Yet another chapter in these pathetic cry-bullies' lives. What a waste of your life to be so dedicated to "defending" a forum to meticulously document and mock the existence of people that they find distasteful.

To pretend this is a crusade for free speech is laughable.

Downplaying the problems of the youth today because six hundred years ago kids had to deal with a plague, is a new one for me.

"You think you've got it rough? Well six hundred years ago there was a conquest of the Mongols. I bet you feel pretty stupid about your suicidal ideation now!"

This one-upmanship about the problems people face is toxic, and frankly boomer logic.

A gift? Maybe depending on how full you are seeing the glass at any given time. But perhaps OP was trying to say:

When you bring a human into the world, you are going have to explain a lot of it to them.

I completely disagree that higher wages does not increase quality of life. Especially when we are discussing minimum wage workers. Certainly there is a threshold at which the increments have a diminishing effect. But minimum wage workers are still roughly around 50 thousand dollars a year away from that point.

When you are making minimum wage, every dollar counts in relieving the stress of simply trying to exist.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say with this.

The suggestion of this comment being that the people making the least are the people causing the problem?

One of the world's richest men using the homeless as a punchline.

Yes, the idea of short sellers using nefarious methodologies to provide value for themselves is also "awful". This is essentially the crux of my argument about Elon's usage of twitter. I'm of the mind that more than one awful thing can exist in society at the same time.

I'm sorry that I didn't base my argument on what "he may have well had". But when I think about it that way, sure, he may have well had never done anything wrong. The courts disagree, but they also might not being taking into account what he may have well had.

I tried my best to elaborate on why I felt that him purchasing a stake in twitter was awful for society in my last comment. I am sorry that you didn't find it meaty enough for you to argue on, but perhaps that is for the best.

and yes, I also believe bitcoin and MLM ponzi schemes are also awful.

Well, the definition "awful for society" is fairly anecdotal, so my reply won't be able to be built upon hard facts.

But in my opinion, Elon Musk is a very smart man who not only sees, but has reaped massive value from Twitter. He is notable for tweeting misleading information to affect the stock price of his companies. These actions resulted in a lawsuit from the SEC in 2018.

The ripple effects of stock manipulation are hard to directly tie to the concept of "awful for society". But it certainly feels like when money is given one place, it is taken from another. When that transfer of money is based on misinformation, it creates pain. I personally am doubtful that the billionaire feels any of it, but someone else will.

I also don't believe that Musk has learned any lesson from the lawsuit either. He is currently trying to fight the tweet pre-approval stipulation in the courts. Putting a financial investment into the company to me personally, looks like someone who has found, or is looking for a loophole.