I’m sure someone already made a graph plotting the hours wasted learning vs the seconds gained not moving your mouse.

It’s just a tighter grouping of (biased) data that can be searched and retrieved a bit quicker.

How is your intelligence different from being “biased data that can be accessed”?

The fact that something can reason about what it presents to you as information is a form of intelligence. And while this discussion is impossible without defining “reason”, I think we should at least agree that when a machine can explain to you what and why it did what it did, it is a form of reason.

Should we also not define what it means when a person answers a question through reasoning? It’s easy to overestimate the complexity of it because of our personal bias and our ability to fantasize about endless possibilities, but if you break our abilities down, they might be the result of nothing but a large dataset combined with a simple algorithm.

It’s easy to handwave the intelligence of an AI, not because it isn’t intelligent, but because it has no desires, and therefore doesn’t act unless acted upon. It is not easy to jive that concept with the idea that something is alive, which is what we generally require before calling it intelligent.

So, you’ve talked to a few people, and now group a is better than group b?

Not only is it a ridiculous implication, but you’re somehow grouping up the beforementioned as if they’re not all individuals, who no doubt each have the capability to be extremely annoying.

You then juxtapose this against the right wing/constitutionalists, but why? Why does everything devolve into left vs right? You think all the gay and trans people are automatically left leaning? You’re invalidating the existence of quite a few people just to make a bad argument.

Yeah but does the one on the left fit a rack server? I think not!

Do you mean malware?

Am I the only one who fails to see anything seriously wrong with what you list there? I’m purposefully ignoring “misinformation spreading conspiracy theorist”, because that’s a pretty meaningless accusation and is often added as an easy character assassination rather than something substantial, but I’d like to see you elaborate.

I mean, we’re talking jail time and extradition, and nothing you’ve mentioned is even against the law in the slightest. Yes, there was piracy on his file sharing site, but that’s true for practically any service on the internet, from Google drive to Amazon S3 and anything in-between and vaguely related.

Characters like him are targeted because they are both successful and anti establishment, the eccentricity just tops it off. But why should that result in a lack of sympathy? The world doesn’t have enough of these people who rock the boat if you ask me.

Oh right, so you were talking about the content, that’s not what I understood under “frontend”. Thanks for clearing it up.

I don’t have any experience with the platform, so I’m not in a position to judge their decisions, but it’s always tricky when you present yourself as censor free. There’s things you obviously don’t want on your service, but if it falls within the legal realm, it is no longer a matter of “will we block Nazi material” but whether from that point onward you start taking a moral and political stance.

Things get incredibly tricky and cumbersome if you choose that route, not just from an administrative perspective but also technically. I can understand why the people who operate the platform would prefer to primarily use legality as a deciding factor, as not every ideological issue that you open yourself up to if you take the other route is as straightforward as fascism.

Guys, just because the backbone of your site is decentralized doesn’t mean your centralized frontend can’t be modified by you.

I don’t understand what you’re saying here. Did you mean can be modified? Or what does this have to do with Nazi rhetoric? Maybe you have a different idea about the word “frontend”?

Life is so simple when all that fits in your head is left versus right.

If you can’t even admit that woke culture tries to clean everything up and has exacerbated the issues then you’re simply in denial. It’s all around you, it’s on TV, it’s in comedy clubs, it’s in movies, it’s in universities. If you can’t even acknowledge that, it suggests to me that you can’t really argue with it, but rather need to act that it doesn’t exist.

You’ve gone from name just one to it’s happening all the time pretty quick. Of course it’s something that’s always been around, but we tend to have the ability to gauge the gravity of a situation and react accordingly to address them. Of course that assumes you’re able to admit there’s an issue in the first place.

That wasn’t my comment, and it obviously was just an arbitrary example.

but that doesn’t mean an old comedy show couldn’t be made today because of some sort of political correctness directive, it means modern audiences find new things funny because the comedy landscape changes.

If the issue were simply a different taste in comedy, people wouldn’t be up in arms about it, it would just be ignored, like many things that aren’t popular. If you want to deny that there is a tendency to comb through everything just to find something offensive to rage against, then the discussion is pointless.

We haven’t just gone through a deadly pandemic because many people got ill and survived. It seems that you don’t know what a logical fallacy is.

Correct me if I’m wrong but you are the only one mentioning the year 2005. You agree things have changed, but in each of your comments you are suggesting that nothing is going on. Which is it?

because otherwise they wouldn’t need to complain about struggling with the expectations and culture of today

You only make this ridiculous notion because you happen to agree with the side being argued against. “Don’t complain, everything changes” is something you utter until it is something that *you *disagree with, unless you’re suggesting that you’d be making the same statements about rampant racism and bigotry. It’s OK Russia, go ahead and ban homosexuality, it’s just the expectations and culture of our times!

Comedy has always been about issues in society, and it has long been a platform for free speech with very little boundaries, and it is exactly for that reason that many comedians and people in the media in general highlight the fact that the attempt to make their profession offence-free is problematic.

Comedians have the same situation, if the minority aren’t their customers, they have no reason to care, but they do because it is their customers.

You’re contradicting yourself. On one hand you’re arguing that it’s the current expectations and culture, but at the same time you’re saying it is the minority. The problem is that this vocal minority has such an effect because everyone with an internet connection these days has the ability to ruin someone’s career because they feel offended over a joke, so rather than take a stance for free speech (and comedy) they appease those who make a lot of noise, just to avoid a negative backlash. I think it is a bit easy to dismiss everyone who calls this into question as merely thinking about their own bread and butter. This guy in particular is almost a billionaire, perhaps there’s more to it, but that of course would make it harder to argue against.

I am saying through the fact that they complain about culture, shows that they don’t understand their job

No it shows that you don’t understand comedy, which has always complained about culture. And if there is one thing that woke idealism can’t stand is criticism about itself. Which is exceptionally ironic, because it complains about everything in the name of progress, and in turn is the biggest promotor of cultural regression.

Why does that matter? Is he wrong? Maybe your insinuation that this is about him is incorrect and he just sees it as a blemish on comedy as a whole? Could it be that he just cares about the profession?

It’s so peculiar that people would rather argue something irrelevant rather than admit that they agree with someone they don’t like.

That’s always the last bastion of people arguing against it happening. Throwing up their hands and saying “things change”.

Wow, what an insightful addition to the discussion you absolute dingus. Nobody is denying that things change, what is argued is that the overly woke mindset has a negative effect on said evolution. Maybe next year when your favourite orange man gets back in the office, we’ll just throw up our hands and say that things change without asking the question why we got there, sound like a plan to you? Or do you think that sometimes it might be a good idea to reflect on why we end up where we do?

A dislike for conservatism does not mean that every change is progress, you know.

That’s quite the hollow argument. To first deny that comedy changed and then state that it’s just moved on to something they don’t like and then insult them for it. I think you’re really undermining your own argument by conflating the evolution of comedy with the tendency to clean it up because we are no longer supposed to offend anyone while handing out participation trophies.

You’re free to deny this is happening, but maybe you’re just too young to notice it, kiddo.

You really think the average Barbie-watching lefty can be equated to the communism bordering Lemmy dweller? Please, just because they’re not on the right doesn’t make them the same.