FriendOfDeSoto

The problems with describing this like one parabola are two-fold for me. If we look at the long arm of history, we as a species have been far less interconnected so knowledge wasn’t shared to the same extent it often is today. One of the reasons why a hypothetical Covid-819 would’ve killed more people. At the same time, various regions have gone through their own periods of trouble, dark ages, decays of empires, and religious doom. You’d have to interpolate quite heavily in the bottom part of the parabola to get started. Bronze tools could take a century to spread. Strictly speaking, Gutenberg didn’t invent book printing; China beat him to it. But the repercussions of his movable type were arguably far more reaching. Or more recently, the industrial revolution started around 1750 but didn’t affect a majority on this planet until about 50 years later. There were uncontacted people it never reached that were washed away by the 2006 tsunami. Where to plot these things on an overarching exponential graph become choices. And thus a statistic you’re forging yourself.

And then exponential means at some point we’re going to reach a point where we near constantly innovate stuff. You’d have to do the work of two scientific Nobel prizes before you had your first piss in the morning just to keep up with the pace. This pace of development isn’t sustainable. There has to be an out.

That’s why I would favour a model based on quantum leaps that show localised growth in hockey stick curves. Change today may seem fundamental and omnipresent. But 🫲 six seven 🫱 probably never reached North Korea.

Can you back up the claim of exponential change? For my money we get occasional quantum leaps that end in hockey stick curves.

Technology isn’t everything.

Does your research consider recency bias as well? More or less every generation looks at the world changing in front of them. And every generation considers this the most dramatic change ever. I remember the fall of the USSR and we all thought this is the most significant change in history - it was not. The internet and social media was the next big transformation and the sky was falling - we’re still here. All things considered, the generation in the right age bracket for military service in the late 1930s probably has a better claim on the most dramatic change happening in front of them. So I’m just wondering if you consider these biases?

The people in the nebulously defined West didn’t get into Asian comics first and then gravitated towards the Japanese offerings. Japanese manga companies saw a market for expansion and took advantage of it. Manga is Japanese in the minds of consumers. Most people probably aren’t aware of the Chinese or Korean varieties. Interest in the language came after.

Japanese may be easier to pronounce for us atonal alphabetters. I would say Chinese beats Japanese by having simpler grammar. None of these linguistic reasons matter though. There are plenty of people who learn mandarin today but they didn’t get into it through comics. Most Japanese learners don’t do it for business reasons. The stereotypes are different.

Just an idea: have a look in ask Lemmy or no stupid questions for posts of people who have asked similar questions in the last 12 months or so. How to bring about change or how to start a revolution has been asked. In those posts you’ll at least find another user who is thinking along your lines. There may be more in the comments. Reach out to them.

I think there are two trends. 1) in the early 90s people still got their porn fix from magazine stashes hidden in the woods. Or so the legend goes. So a sex scene or just some boobs were a welcomed element in a movie. In the 70s it was quite common to have absolutely gratuitous female nudity in movies that didn’t need it. Fast forward to the new millennium and you can get any porn you like on your phone in 15 seconds. People don’t go mad if there isn’t a sex scene in it any more. Sensibilities have changed; also in regards to what actors -however well paid- have to go through. Also, US movies have always been more tolerant of violence than sex.

2. Movie financing has shifted more to China and they are even more prudish than the Americans as far as movie censorship is concerned. If you want your movie to get a license to play over there, don’t make the Chinese the bad guys, don’t kill any Chinese people in the movie, and switch to footage of a train going into a tunnel when it gets hot and steamy.

I wonder if the more modern mobile network protocols require slightly more power than the 2-3G of old. It’s probably a rounding error; it would run forever™ minus an hour or so.

They give pronunciation guides. Or they’re effing around. It’s the internet.

What have rogue models effed with so far? A government website in Australia, derelict chat forums, and another AI company? I’m willing to believe that two things are happening at the same time. That sandboxing these agents will improve with these so-called breaches. And that companies like Amazon or Cloudflare are improving their security continuously with threat models. And if they don’t have rogue agents on their radar, that stack deserves to fall.

It would probably be a miracle if you hadn’t re-farted some molecules.

Who specifically would you say banned it from the internet?

Yes. The context was internet services.

Giving up Meta products wouldn’t be terrible. But it wouldn’t solve anything. The greatest environmental footprint is left by streaming, I think.

We should all get off the internet, yet here we are. Hypocrisy is the prequel to Idiocracy.

Because citizenship, employment, and torrenting are not the same thing. Torrenting by itself isn’t the same as pirating either because there are a handful of non arrrr uses for the protocol in real life. This question has the same quality of: why can’t I eat an apple, a bicycle, and the categorical imperative? Are you that obtuse or a bot?

Don’t travel to places where it’s illegal. And if you do, don’t try to acquire anything while in places where the legislation has real teeth. Chances are if weed is illegal, any fun substitute will be as well. Depending on where you are going a positive blood test, should you get in trouble with the law for whatever reason, may still get you in trouble even if all of the weed in your bloodstream was consumed where it was legal to do so. That’s also something to consider two months ahead of your trip abroad.

If you are so worried that you cannot break your habitual use you may want to investigate your use pattern even while you are where it is legal. Marijuana addiction is not a huge societal problem overall but it can be for the individual.

I did! Thanks, I edited it.

I have only briefly lived in France and it’s a way back also. I never got the impression they were inflexible about eating times.

Do those people take a different month off?

Yes. It may be time for time and not a whole month at a time. Also keep in mind that those workers aren’t full-timers. ContRacts tend to be time-limited in that field, i.e. people get hired for a season with no guarantee for work after that. So people plan their own vacation time.

Edited typo

Just as an example that this sort of localisation also happens the other way around: Paw Patrol features Ryder as the human in charge of the crack hero dog outfit. He turned into the rather Japanese ケント or Kento over here. Ryder when turned into katakana is a little too close to “懶惰, 嬾惰 [らんだ, らいだ]: indolence, laziness, sloth, idleness.” And he is a dull smartass but to be fair to the lad he isn’t lazy.

When potatoes came over from the New World, a lot of Europeans grew them as decorative plants. New shit makes people do weird stuff.

Not everybody is trying to make a business with so-called AI. The peddlers are just the loudest.

The companies promise their models can do all this stuff for paying customers. If the models were truly that capable, the so-called AI companies ought to be doing everything with them and be raking in the dough like mad. Which they’re not because they know the limitations of the models. It’s what economists call the bullshit gap between marketing and reality. And by economists I mean me.

The devil is in the details. You have to define homelessness first. Would a ban on that even be legal? And what is the state doing to prevent it and/or what are the penalties for violators? There is certainly a chance that this inches painfully close to keeping people concentrated, in a camp, which should, in a sane world, weigh heavily against such a ban. But if a ban meant anybody on the street gets put in an apartment, given medical care including therapy, and then given a chance to become a productive member of society within their means, then it wouldn’t be imprisonment. That’s the Finnish solution to the problem, which benefits from having a smaller population in the country overall and a smaller percentage of homeless people than, say, Los Angeles.