lancesells

My guess is you can trace a lot of those publications to a handful of conglomerates that are there for ROI and nothing else.

It's also directed by one of the best directors in history.

> Most people have terrible eyes for distinguishing content.

But also in the case of the fluffy train there's nothing to compare it against. The reason CGI humans look the most fake is because we're trained from birth to read a human face. Someone that looks at trains on a regular basis will probably discern this as being fake quicker than most.

I'm wondering that as well but I also wonder if it's a bit like CGI where it's somewhat hit a limit on realness. I'm not saying CGI doesn't get better but is a 2024 Gollum that much more realistic than 2004 Gollum? Maybe I'm wrong but I wonder if that plastic feel to AI lessens but still sticks around.

> But debanking happens, or has happened, to _almost_ everybody who has some assets and cash, probably from the higher middle class until the ~1%

Can you back up this claim? The wealthier you are the less chance you're going to be debanked. Marc Andressen and all the crypto bros will never have an issue with debanking. Banks are rolling out the red carpet for him and everyone else with his net worth.

What they (1%) want is to own the bank and own (and create) the currency without ever having to be an actual bank. They invest in crypto to make a massive profit, and it's foolish to play along with these things as some sort of benefit to society. Together these guys could end world hunger and still have more money than they would ever need, but no, they've decided VBucks are a pressing issue.

It's funny how humans and companies have mined natural resources for theoretical progress, but we've come to a point that natural resources are being used to mine a fake resource that really serves zero purpose. What an absurd direction technology has gone.

Have you seen Youtube or Reddit comments on anything? They don't reflect real-life. Youtube is probably the worst, most trollish comments of the "normal" internet and Reddit is a sort of progressive propaganda machine that will also call for the death penalty on a teenager that did something stupid (which lots of teenagers do) or a karen that was an asshole in a restaurant and isn't happy with her life.

I haven't visited twitter in ten years or more so can't comment on that.

I look at Brave as another business looking to take their cut as a middleman between users and creators. It's an ad network that takes the 30% cut like Apple does to apps making over $1M.

I would much rather that creators who want to make money decide what they want to sell, and how they want to sell it. The web doesn't need a crypto tip jar layer.

I don't have an answer to this, but why if the algorithm can manipulate people, regardless of who directed it, why are we ok with the algorithmic content of all the platforms? I'm not much of a social media user but a lot of the argument here is the algorithm can feed propoganda that people will succumb to.

Why is it ok then for Youtube to feed violence and awful behavior to people (probably to lots of kids) in the US if it's able to influence people? Is the thought that Meta and Google (both without ethics or morals) are just trying to get us to buy shit we don't need, but Tiktok is trying to get us to agree (or not agree) with their stance on x?

I would imagine 95% of cookies are not selling data but giving your data away in exchange for the other services.

1. Because they are using GA4 feeding info to Google.

2. Because they have some advertising pixel / api set up feeding info to Meta.

I would guess sites like Hubspot, Salesforce, or Github might actually be selling data.

Net worth $1.6B. So eating a $6M banana is a PR stunt.

Edit: Also doesn't mean it can't be resold as that banana gets replaced x number of days.

I honestly like my photos more from my iPhone 3 than my current iPhone SE. The photos were blurry, noisy, and crunchy while my current photos are just flat and without character. It's not nostalgia for me, it's the photos looking too good and a bit plastic.

This is brilliant

It's more about people with a lot of money hoping to sell it for a greater return, while maybe also having shit taste in art. In five years it'll be at an auction and sell to some other person with too much money in hopes of making a profit on it later on.