The AI model has revised your prompt: Create an imaginative blending of an anthropomorphic green frog with an individual characterized by long, sleek braids often associated with a hip-hop lifestyle. The frog should exhibit human traits and appear jovial and mischievous. The individual should have a lean physique and wear sunglasses, a beanie hat, and casual attire typically seen in urban fashion.
The AI model has revised your prompt: Create an image of a green cartoon frog, wearing glasses and featuring typical hip-hop fashion elements such as a baseball cap, gold chains, and baggy clothes. The frog has a cool, laid-back demeanor, characteristic of a classic rap artist.
I 100% did this on Reddit. And I do it here too. Most news websites are garbage and loaded with advertisements. Get halfway through the story and a full page ad pops up or a video starts playing. Honestly, does anybody stop reading to watch those videos???
Or, you go into the comments and see the summary, or the full article, or quotes of the most important parts with discussions. If I feel I have questions, only then will I open the website.
You must be the last person on Lemmy still looking at these sites the way they’re displayed by default. Firefox, adblock, no script, pi hole, etc makes all that go away pretty painlessly.
iOS. I use Firefox normally, but the app just loads the in app web browser, which I doesn’t seem to block ads. Not sure if safari extensions would work with the in app browser… might try it.
I like how the child in the first panel grows up to be the protester in the second panel, and the child in the second panel grows up to be the protester in the third panel.
Maybe “becoming conservative” as one grows older means differently to other people. Personally for me, as i grow older, I think it means looking for more stability. Which i can get behind but it doesn’t mean i will vote to cut taxes for the rich and austerity. Same as you, I’d stay leftie because i support social justice.
I’ve seen a few people go from brown nosers, to union men, to “mad about capitalism”. Some of them even graduated to “this guy’s been reading books”, I know only one who’s begun pitifully stockpiling arms and ammo and another who joined mutual aid. I’m still quite young, but most lefties of my early adulthood bourgeios white educated American caste are only considering action as a result of Israeli Imperialism and fear of a another world imperial struggle. The vast majorities of these are still socially tolerant neoloberals.
I think I’ve gotten more conservative in that I now think a democratic system of law and slow progress for a better future is possible via peaceful means, which technically means I’m no longer for radical reform progressivism, and also I’ve been considering arming myself to protect my family (from Maga terrorists in the event of a civil war). But I’m still left as fuck, bro.
Conservatism the political stance isn’t exactly compatible with some aspects of “democratic” or egalitarian ideals. It would be more accurate to say that maybe you consider yourself less progressive but the main throughline of “Conservative” political philosophy since it’s establishment as “the right” has been one that has argued that power should not be entirely egalitarian and that the only the “right” people are the only ones who should weild authority. In a monarchist society it’s the nobility, in a post monarchist society it means the wealthy intelligencia or the landlords, in a capitalist society it favors the rich and business elite and in a facist society it favors an “us” as opposed to a “them”. Another feature is that It also tends to attempt to empower select individuals and focuses on expanding the executive command at the top.
While the right constantly apes the language of the left and it’s tactics regularly change when you lay open the very core of the thing it’s always got the same authoritarian objective. I posit that “conservative” meaning ‘not prone to excess’ and “Conservatism” the branch of politics really should stop being conflated at all as everyone and their dog believes that they are rational and not prone to excess and gives the false impression that one endorses the objectives of Conservatism. Since Conservatives thrive on the idea of being a moral majority depriving them of any notion that you actually endorse them is kind of nessisary to combat them.
You should, firearms aren’t just for the lunatic conservatives and the more liberal minded people who are willing to learn to defend themselves the better off society will be.
The conservative side loves to pretend they’re the only ones willing to fight for something, and I’d rather them not be correct if they ever tried something large scale.
In previous generations, people did on average become more conservative as they got older; people like Bernie Sanders are the exception.
It’s less true with newer generations because we aren’t accumulating wealth like our parents and grandparents did, and it’s the accumulation of wealth that encourages conservatism
I’m thinking more socially. I grew up learning about the counterculture and hippy movement. And yet, the same generation, i.e. Boomers, that brought those activism now have become (and being stereotyped as) conservative.
I came from a conservative culture. The media from the boomer generation teaches to question authority figures (there was dictatorship at the time). Despite that, many boomers demand unquestionable loyalty respect from younger folks.
Now that I mentioned it, maybe people become conservative once they get to be in position of power.
Exactly! I’ve seen it in the workplace over the years. Most give up and go-along-to-get-along or face shitty jobs and get passed over for advancements.
I don’t think it’s necessarily succumbing to it. Usually it’s more of the fact that you’re well established and have money and a house, so you feel that things don’t need to change anymore so you end up voting conservative. However since it’s seeming more and more likely home ownership and even retirement are too far away to ever be achievable for young people this shifting to conservative as you get older might not happen anymore.
My rule of thumb is that sidevolving is easier than improving or degrading.
If you became a dumb conservative, you are statistically more likely to have been a dumb liberal. The problem was with you in the first place and the value you came to represent in the society as a citizen of political sway.
Once you are a radicalized leftist you’re not going back to (neo) liberalism. You could downgrade to a social democrat, though. Its unlikely a politically active liberal is going to be so disenfranchised they become reactionary… And your explanation is exactly the reason why. If the political activity is coming from self-centeredness, then that person may resort to reactionary politics at some point.
I think the fentanyl crisis is significantly worse, and the US is known for poor quality alcoholic beverages (even when that reputation is undeserved).
Alcohol I think mildly saves itself on accident too. For instance I had moonshine last night, made by a member of a local biker gang, not the stuff at the store labeled moonshine. Many of the makers charge quite a bit because it isn’t all that cheap to make unless you are mass producing. Generally that means you end up having other Alcoholic beverages with moonshine which the main issue with is methanol poisoning if not distilled properly. ( The methanol boils off at a lower temperature than the ethanol) So if they don’t distill it perfectly the methanol poisoning can set in, but one remedy for methanol poisoning is Ethenol. So if someone is drinking some moonshine and some actually produced by a legitimate company liqour on the side (shots of whiskey or such) they are actually fighting the impurity of the moonshine.
You see to have misinterpretted the opinion. They’re stating that the newspaper focuses on those things so much so that one would assume that’s the only thimg that matters. Much the same as today’s news media with their 24/7 focus on doom and gloom for the views and clicks.
That is, or course, if you’re like the others who seem to interpret the opinion as a commentary on how the world truly was.
If over the course of 100 years, nothing more newsworthy has prevailed to get people’s attention, that the doom and gloom of a century ago is the same as it is today, it’s saying something about the world in general that we haven’t changed. Should we have changed in 100 years? I’d like to think so, but as I get older I know that’s a pretty optimistic view of things.
That author’s paragraph out of context could mean a lot of different things which we can leave up to each viewer to decide.
Some dude drives on of those where i live. I've never seen it move, it's always parked on the same spot where it doesn't fit. Completely with aouthern state flag and stickers that say that only gay cops pull him over and how every car that is not a v8 is for girls. I'd be so embarrassed to drive that thing.
And a dodge challenger, Chevy Camaro, all of the Nissan Z series and all of the skyline series, the delorean dmc-12, most mustangs, Acura nsx, Subaru wrx sti, the list is literally hundreds of cars long.
All of these cars are definitely too much car for that dude I can guarantee it.
where i live, which is in the south, every 3 cars is one of these, they lift suvs too, so that increases the odds. when cops clock out they also drive one of these, even the gay ones. driving it is no big deal, its how they drive and what they do with it, usually road raging other road users, intimidating them, and trying to run them off the road, in other words bullying and intimidation, which is likely why they own one in the first place. why do they feel a strong desire to bully or intimidate anyone? that’s a great question. why do you have to knock out the biggest guy in jail to get any respect? …
There is a dealership here called lifted trucks(I know very straight forward. straight to the main selling point) they have more lots here than other dealerships.It is very clear the amount of lifted trucks here went up significantly. The whole city screams that I’m only doing it to get women because I’m insecure about myself. Which is the reason why I wish to move to Europe’s walkable cities or just move to a place with no one around.
I didnt say I owned a truck. I have a electric bike that I built. I said either go to a walkable city OR go to the middle of nowhere “living off the land.”
Also, it probably weighs over 3500 kg, so you’ll need a C license to drive it. Fun fact, if you have one of those, you can also drive a huge lorry. Why would you choose an eyesore like that, when you could be a badass rock hauler.
It's ok to be a freak. It's not ok to be an asshole for the sake of being an asshole. We like the weirdos for the colourfulness they bring to our lives. No one likes an asshole.
Keep Lemmy weird. Don't be an asshole. Live by these rules and this place will always be great.
We all have our moments (or so he tells himself). I’m not advocating being an asshole, but they do make things seem more real. I’ve been in online groups where everyone’s blandly cordial and it all feels lifeless.
You can be a difficult bastard without being mean though, it’s practically my whole job these days.
Actually I think being a difficult bastard, stubborn, or an arsehole is actually needed in certain contexts. Sometimes people are stubborn just because they can, sometimes it’s because they are defending themselves or someone else.
Humanity is fantastic, wonderful, loving and amazing. It’s not a shit hole.
I’d argue society is really broken in some places, but not humanity.
As for Social media: it just brings out some dark side in some people. The vast majority of people on social media behave. It’s just that the outliers catch the attention.
Just like most animals the greater majority of people try to avoid as many direct conflicts as possible IRL. And they’re full of empathy and compassion - even for other animals in distress and inanimate objects (saw off the fingers of a plastic doll in front of others and see how they treat you afterwards).
But of course people will lose a part of that compassion etc once they move within society without feeling like a part of it. One example is driving a car. You’re way less aware of being a part of society even though you’re “swimming” in it. Feeling a strong individual agency and being empowered by two tons of steel while simultaneously being greatly restricted by everyone and everything around you will do that to you.
Same goes for the (social) media landscape. We feel empowered by our own echo chambers and/or chosen media outlet while barely interacting with anyone who could challenge our beliefs (which, funnily enough, is often the right call in that context, because we can’t change strong opposing beliefs via social media). And since it’s all an indirect, mostly faceless interaction, our beliefs will automatically be strengthened and we’ll be more likely to agitate anyone with opposing beliefs (while still avoiding any direct conflict).
So I’d say it’s more of a flaw in our design, that is being exploited, than a general lack of sympathy/empathy (of which we actually have plenty).
Which means you can’t hold any one individual to higher standards. Because that’s not where we “fail”. It’d take a much broader appliance of social securities (housing, food, healthcare, education etc all over the world) and a fundamental change in the way we interact. But you and I won’t change that (though I guess it’s comforting telling ourselves that we could individually change things on a greater scale).
One major issue is we assume the motivations of others all the time, usually negative. Add anonymity to the mix and you have social media rage. A good place to start is to occasionally think “Maybe I’m not 100% right. Maybe they are at least partially right also.” Also, “What could be their reasons for thinking that?” without dismissing them out of hand. The press encourages rage by presenting us with a filter of negativity and constantly pressing our anger buttons.
True psychopaths exist but not to the extent people may think.
If you consider that we are currently destroying our eco system that we need to survive and have known for over 50 years that the co2 levels will cause major issues, but nobody really felt the need to act. And when the countries actually sat together and made the Kyoto contracts the USA steped in and fucks up the whole idea. Thanks Bush you little Oil-fucker!
Considering that you could say humanity is fucked and humans are at fault. And if you look at it the people voting are at fault too, falling for company and other proparganda and voting for a government that fucks them even harder.
I would say humanity as we know it won’t exist anymore in 200 years. War, droughts, floods and shit will get us. Even if we would act now the whole planet would need to cooperate. No Chance!
I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but the actual power in the world lies in the hand of just a fraction of percent of the people. Those asshole ruin it for everyone else.
Yeah, I know! But do you see anybody care about that? Do the votes for political parties show anything that would mean they don’t like those corrupted bastards?
No! Most people don’t care or think voting for the same parties will change sth.
I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone who didn’t care about this besides the one-off sociopaths you encounter on the internet (though I’m fairly convinced that they also care but just feel powerless to change things). The problem is that the priority for most people is not starving to death within the next month, and that makes it impossible to devote time and energy into solving more long term problems.
The thing is the same people who fuck the planet are responsible for your nonexisting social safety net.
I know people only care about politics when they have nothing else to do, but this is the problem. Most people won’t make a well informed decision when voting, because they don’t have time to do that. I mean most countries you can’t even go vote on sunday
Worse, the average human is self absorbed and apathetic. This enables all of the truly evil to assert itself. Humanity is the sum of its choices and look where that leads. If it’s a battle of best vs worst natures, it’s become clear what side has prevailed.
Dog Im on social media because Im the shit in the hole. When Im not on social media Im overall a pretty worthwhile person. Causation not correlation etc.
I am also in the Netherlands using uBlock Origin and Firefox and am not getting it. So my best guess is they're doing A/B testing and people are being randomly selected to see how they'll respond to something like this.
I started having problems with freetube a few months back, as well. I switched to one of several piped instances (whichever one is working at any given time) in my browser.
Practically and actually are two different things.
Just because serving the video costs a fraction of a cent doesn’t mean you can round that down to zero, especially when you are serving billions of video views a day.
IRL Example: I host several videos across my various sites. I pay $99/mo for a CDN. Said CDN caches my videos and does not charge for bandwidth usage. Therefore you can technically argue that I pay $99/mo for X visitors. In actuality , the CDN caches all my content. It also provides DDOS protection, a firewall, and other advanced features. That is what I pay $99/mo for.
My cost to distribute the video is $99 + my hosting bill ($50-$200/mo depending on backend jobs) / number of views. This would be true if the video has 1 view or a billion (most of the ones I host have had “millions” of views)
The video can be 360p or 8k. CDN does not care. Mine are 4k.
You did say practically, but I’m saying that practically is still a cost. You are still paying money to serve your videos.
People post on YouTube because they don’t have to pay the server costs for videos. If you want to get the video makers to pay the server costs, feel free. However, given their thin margins, they probably won’t.
Also, it sounds like your CDN is betting your videos won’t routinely go viral and get billions of views. If that happened, I would expect your monthly bill to go up.
My CDN’s policies are pretty well set via contract. There is no provision for using too much bandwidth and I pay yearly at any rate.
I bring this up not so the average joe can host their own videos, but to point out that yes, someone can create a youtube clone. The hosting of multimedia content isn’t what stops that. A site like youtube has to attract 2 market verticals: talent and users, which is incredibly difficult without gobs of money to throw at it.
But you are also missing item 3, monetization. Alphabet turns practically free into something they can make money off of with advertising. People who are popular enough on YouTube get paid for what they make. It may not be a lot, but it is more than having to pay to get your video hosted.
And those content creators that strike out on their own platforms typically put their content behind a paywall to fund the cost to develop and distribute their work.
The cost for the system may be practically free, but it isn’t actually free.
And a lot of users who just doesn’t care enough to do anything drastic about it. We already saw it with reddit, and twitter to a point. The userbase on the internet is so huge now that the people actually being aware and caring about privacy and non-commercialisation are a tiny minority. Companies can easily still make a profit on the vast majority of people who will uncritically consume.
As crazy as this is to watch from within the US, it must be terrifying in a different way for those in other countries. You have this lunatic criminal trying to regain power like it’s a news story about a coup in some small developing country, but it’s the country with the big guns and bombs. Plus, the would-be dear leader might even want to pull out of NATO. Chilling.
Lol in my local cinema I have to use a computer next to the ticket taker to print my ticket I bought online and then they physically look at it to tell me which theatre I should walk to, it’s like Idiocracy’s costco
lemmy.world
Top