The problem isn’t restricted to one sex/gender.

Perhaps not.

…And yeah, there’s all sorts of flavors of hostility even here on Lemmy.

But the manosphere seems to be “winning” their culture war, at least here in the US, compared to whatever the equivalent problem on the other end is. That feels like the bigger problem.

One issue with that is visibility. Showing up in an open Fediverse feed is likely how other women discover the community, while a closed one would have more of a “private chat room” kind of structure and feel, right?

The legit concern I’ve seen is that it doesn’t fit in Lemmy’s structure. You can’t just exclude a demographic, right? But I respectfully disagree, as I believe the expectation is that the community is “read-only” to posters identifying as men, and posting is a perfectly enforceable thing on Lemmy.

Other arguments are just baits for toxicity I’d rather not get into :(. But yeah, one factor is definitely like:

It reminds me of one of my friends upset he wasn’t invited to one of our line gaming get together, despite the fact they hate the game

Yeah, that’s perfectly reasonable. That’s how I discovered it too.

AFAIK the expectation is that everything there is publicly viewable, but posting is bound by the rules.

And that’s (IMO) within Lemmy’s structure. Mods can set whatever rules for posting that they want, and it isn’t the only community that’s “exclusive”.

Please do. Uncomfortable is good.

For real.

This is literally what happens in Lemmy’s women-only sub. Posters are still complaining about it in comments below.

Ugh… I fear for the future of my sex. Sometimes, I want to slap some basic respect into other guys. Nothing fancy or philosophical, just “don’t be a dick, leave other human beings in peace” kind of common sense. Yet it feels like a losing battle.

It’s not as detrimental as you think.

If you take a dedicated camera, put it on a tripod, and shoot it at like f22, yeah, you’ll clearly see a spec of dust or a smudge in a shot. But shoot with a wide open aperture (like your phone usually does), and its essentially invisible.

And then that little imperfection gets AI’d away by all the computational frame-stacking your phone does for every shot.

In other words, your phone’s images so processed that one spec of dust doesn’t really matter.

And even on RAWs from a mirrorless camera, it’s the least of your problems, with things like shot noise, motion blur, lens distortion, botched settings and other imperfections all having a much bigger impact on the final image.

Eh, I don’t totally agree. AI can discover novel exploits that aren’t already in some database, and likely have in this case.

I’m just saying the operating patterns between different LLMs are more similar than you’d expect, like similar tools from the same factory.

It does seem advantageous to the defender.

Another factor Mozilla didn’t mention (and that Anthropic wouldn’t like to emphasize) is that major LLMs are pretty similar. And their development is way more conservative than you’d think. They use similar architectures and formats, train from the same data, distill each other, further pollute the internet with the same output and so on. So if (for example) Mozilla red teams with Mythos, I’d posit it’s likely that attacker LLMs would find the same already-patched bugs, instead of something new.

…So yeah. I’d wager Mozilla’s sentiment is correct.

I mean, I use every alternative I can. Vapoursynth scripts, libraw-based projects, random GitHub repos, DaVinci…

But there are some features I just can’t get great support for outside of definitely-not-high-seas Lightroom Classic:

• Good lens profiles for weird lenses.

• Proper HDR PQ/HLG editing and AVIF/JXL export support.

• RAW support for newer cameras, like my little R50V

I have yet to try DaVinci’s photo editing mode though. That’s very interesting.

What you describe is exactly why the dentist got fired once a VC bought out the region, and partly why the doctor burned out.

They are questioning.

My observation is that doctors are getting squeezed, other staff moreso. They’re getting pushed harder and harder for more and more productivity out of them.

A doctor in my family quit and retired early because (basically) their group got more corporate and burned him out. I heard of a dentist who quit over ethics issues once their group was acquired by private equity.

Not that they aren’t well off, but I’d be careful blaming working professionals like doctors, engineers and such so much.

On a technical level, that makes zero sense.

AI “agents” are basically just fancy prompts with a tool calling harness. They are infinitely replicable, at zero cost, with no intrinsic value; the cost comes from the generic CPU host, and the API calls to GPU servers, databases, or whatever else that are all centralized anyway.

Wanna hear a dirty secret?

“AI” cost is going to zero.

Model capabilities aren’t scaling, but inference efficiency is exploding, thanks to more resource-constrained labs and breakthroughs in papers. The endgame of the current bubble is mediocre but useful tools anyone can host themselves, dirt cheap. Maybe a bit more reliable and refined than what we have now, but about as “intelligent.”

And guess what?

Microsoft can’t profit off that. None of the Tech Bros can.

Point being, this exec is either delusional, or jawboning, so the world doesn’t realize that “AI” is a dumb utility/aid, and they can’t make any profit off it.

As if the cat couldn’t get up there already. It just demanded direct placement.

Actually I think the public would generally understand this. Older demographics know what a camera indicator is, and for younger ones, a little light on sunglasses would get their attention.

Universally? No. But I’d wager the percentage is high enough for a crowd to know.

It’s generally more obvious when someone holds up a phone, but yeah.

Nope.

Not sure where OP got it from, but it’s an edit of this image:

Dating back to 2013: https://tineye.com/search/cf7d2b88446844f3df676dddf009f7824c20cabc?tags=&sort=crawl_date&order=asc&page=1

It’s not just corporations. It’s influencer-grifters like Pirat_Nation.

…And, to be blunt, reposters who further spread the ragebait, like OP.

The platforms, ultimately, are what facilitate “marketing bait.” But I dunno what to do about that, as human being simply cannot help themselves once they see stuff like that. It works, apparently.

I mean, yeah… It’s a blue checkmark account.

At this point, if you’re paying for extra engagement on Twitter, that is beyond “benefit of the doubt.” It seems safe to assume its some kind of attention farm.