ninjagoo
Joined 4 years ago
Karma
1,352
Submissions
483
Member since
Feb 26
Recent submissions
Comment · 13 hours ago
Comment · 13 hours ago
> I am afraid future of art is bleak. Poems hand written by poets will be competing with machines. Movies by Nolan and AI probably would not be easily distinguishable. Would we still pay for human made movies when AI can generate one for us, with the ending and style we want?
If it isn't obvious already, it should become obvious soon that economics and society as a whole will need to change. People will still want to do people things, like make art for example, but the need to monetize their work will have to go away.
There are many hobbyists that do things for the pleasure of doing them, and by that definition most human activities will become hobbies, done for pleasure and the sake of doing them, not for monetary/economic value.
The (economic) grind of artists painstakingly creating scenes for The Simpsons - which is already outsourced to cheaper overseas locations - will no longer be a human domain; and as I understand it, is not even currently in the domain of US-based artists and is instead being done in South Korean animation studios [1]. Does that mean US artists have disappeared?
There are large communities that come together for non-economic activities. History re-enactors for example. So hierarchy, organization, etc. will continue, just not for pecuniary work. A potential model for this is outlined in The Culture of Iain M. Banks' sci-fi, with the idea being that eliminating the economic necessity of work does not eliminate the human desire to accomplish [2].
I prefer the rosier outlook over the dystopian one. Society could go either way. We shall see.
[1] https://responsejournal.net/issue/2024-11/feature/between-se... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture
Comment · 1 day ago
> How much are these customers paying for support to have Raymond Chen on first level support to debug their batch files?
Or rather, maybe, how bad are the initial support levels that couldn't figure out basic functionality like this and it was escalated to Chen?
Or maybe he was on a project working directly with the client already, so this was just part of whatever he was working on.
Comment · 5 days ago
> "this represents good value for money" (imo)
Wouldn't you say this archive represents good value for the money?
A nation that forgets its past is a nation that repeats its mistakes.
Comment · 5 days ago
> I wonder what caused that prediction to fail.
A lot of media outlets have been fingering the outage of some data centers due to kinetic action for a worldwide decline in divisive rhetoric, potentially impacting democratic processes.
Comment · 7 days ago
> Even to a lefty liberal like me. But I'm open to data that, actually, it'll turn out fine.
So conclusion before evidence?
At least the founders had the foresight to codify innocent-until-proven-guilty.
Comment · 7 days ago
Looks like there isn't anything critically important in the definition.
Why is loitering a problem?
Maybe someone at the transit center is there to enjoy the architecture without needing to go somewhere. We ask artists to design a beautiful space transit space, and then want to exclude someone that wants to just imbibe the vibe. Others may have some other purpose for that space. The spectrum of experience for 7 billion humans is unlikely to be fathomable to allow for enumeration as 'allowed activities'. "Loitering" is a silly, unserious, approach to managing criminality, as is a $2.50 fee. A $2.50 fee isn't going to stop anyone with criminal intent.
Either it is a public space or it isn't. If no harm is being caused, no reason to exclude anyone from public spaces.
Comment · 8 days ago
> generally should not be for loitering.
What does loitering mean? Why is it a problem?
Comment · 8 days ago
> I’m saying that knowing that you’re being (potentially) being watched for fare evasion has a deterrent effect on wanting to commit a crime.
Are you suggesting that society can reduce crime by charging a fee to be out in public and surveilling public spaces for fare evasion?
Brilliant!
Comment · 8 days ago
> I think the issue is loitering
Why is loitering an issue/crime? Should it be?
Comment · 8 days ago
> There is a cost benefit analysis that even serial offenders go through to pick a victim
Are you making the case that a society unable to protect its denizens from violent offenders in broader society will be able to protect its denizens on public transport from those same violent offenders through the application of a $2.50 fare?
Hmm.
Comment · 8 days ago
Carmen Ortiz, a prosecutor, was accused of driving reddit co-founder Aaron Swartz to his end with her plea-bargain tactics per this article [1][2]
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2013/01/17/aaron-swa... [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20260227061241/https://www.forbe...
Comment · 9 days ago
> It's vastly more expensive and difficult to react to violence on the subway than to keep violent people out with a small fare
Are you making a case that a violent person, who ignores the stringent laws of society against violence, will diligently follow the laws of society requiring $2.50 prior to riding public transport?
LOL
I found The Nautilus series to be a rather decent treatment of Verne's book, and it has a 6.8 rating on IMDB [1], and a 79% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes [2]. Would have liked to see a second season to explore Verne's exposition a bit more. Missed opportunities, I guess. Maybe AI can help tell that storyline in the future even though it may not have made sense to the studios.
[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt15286302
[2] https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/nautilus_2