Don’t put words in my mouth, they taste too salty.
To an extent violence is an effective tool: that I can definitely agree with. There’s never been any social progress without blood being shed on some level.
It’s when it turns into a gratuitous means of communal catharsis that it becomes inherently counterintuitive by serving no other practical outcome than creating murderers and dehumanizers out of progressives. And these sub-humans and urchins you speak of are, whether you like it or not, extremely human, and even further than that are direct products of the societies that we’ve been complacent in for our entire lives and, likewise, we are also products of.
So to answer your question clearly, I draw the line at violence when it’s in the name of the abstract: not only because I oppose things like the death penalty as a matter of principle, but because violence for an ideal or ideals is valuable to no one and nothing. No one gains anything material by destroying for the sake of it. It’s just that: destructive. Something I wish we humans learned a long time ago, but I digress.
It really weirds me out that gratuitous violence as a response to societal injustice is so common on Lemmy, if not across Humanity as a whole. Like let’s say this back-to-basics style of justice comes about in modern society and all the relevant assholes are subjected to it. What then? At least, what would the violence even be in the name of? Retribution? How is that productive in any way?
I realize this is a pretty disproportionate response to a relatively banal comment, but I see sentiments such as this one (either intended as sarcasm or not) so often here that I’m essentially using this as a catch-all spot for my thoughts on it.
I’ll just end this tangent with a quote about this sort of thing from a guy way smarter than me (and I promise I’m not just trying to be pretentious it actually applies.)
Absolute freedom mocks at justice. Absolute justice denies freedom. To be fruitful, the two ideas must find their limits in each other. - My buddy Albert Camus
Valve directly stated that they had to reconsider their pricing for the steam machine (i.e. increase it substantially more than originally intended) because of the obscenely inflated costs of components. This isn’t just about the steam machine being “too expensive,” the prices for it are quite literally far higher than they should be, albeit with it being for the most part out of Valve’s hands. It’s far more complicated than consumers being greedy and desensitized.
Valve notes that the RAM crunch has impacted pricing. "The overall effect is that our original goal for the price of [the] Steam Machine is no longer viable," it says. "So the prices we're sharing today reflect the state of the world for manufacturing. Or, more accurately, it reflects the price of the components as we've secured them over the past six months."
Once again, that’s a single video of one example of an old computer booting up. It’s hardly irrefutable, like anything anecdotal. I’m not even disagreeing on the consensus of newer computers being undeniably faster, this is just a flimsy evidence regardless.
And frankly I don’t care about “contributing” as you describe it. That just amounts to adhering to everyone’s idea of contribution on social media, and I’m not Sisyphus, so…
I didn’t say the average pet was either of those things. What I basically said was that they probably meant when compared to the average pet, ferrets are much more maintenance and less sanitary than usual.
Similarly, If I shit and take a shower after, I’m still not clean!
Sarcasm aside, this sentiment is oozing subjective interpretation mistaken for objective fact. Political views (like more or less any other opinions) are far more complicated than just: “if you are this one thing, you cannot be this other thing.”
You can be fiscally right-leaning and socially left-leaning, as well as the other way around. Likewise, as painful as it may be to hear, capitalism is not mutually exclusive with leftism. By the logic of your opinion, Mamdani isn’t left-leaning either, because he’s still participating in and thereby protecting the capitalist systems of the US. It’s just a silly way of thinking.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it doesn’t seem like the interviewee was ever asked about tools like code completion. The article focuses almost exclusively on ‘generative AI’ and PocketPair’s attitude towards its usage in game development. I don’t think it’s fair to consider it a dodging of questions if said questions seemingly weren’t brought up to begin with.
Besides, I doubt non-devs even really know about/understand machine learning tools in game development aside from the standard AI slop machines. For them code completion probably seems more like a standard programming tool as opposed to something more akin to an LLM, especially since most people already know about things like autocorrect through their phones and the like which is pretty similar.
I imagine by “AI” they mean strictly LLMs from OpenAI and other related sources. It’s more or less a consequence of the term being used as a catch-all by marketing teams even if it’s misleading.
They’ve for sure used machine learning tools in their development process, I have no doubt about that. I mean, that’s literally what code completion is. That’s been a thing for much longer than LLMs though, and it’s really only a supplement to the actual intentions & efforts of the devs using it. Stuff like that is useless if you don’t have any game development expertise.
I have no doubt it is with the way the prices have been with memory and gas for a while now at this point. Not necessarily Valve’s fault, but it’s gonna suck ass regardless.
Regardless it’s in poor taste to immediately blame the masses when something so widespread doesn’t go well. I think history and current events has proven more than enough how little that works, if ever. People really aren’t capable of truly acting as part of a perfect whole.
That’s the thing, voters didn’t vote for a Liberal majority. Last year’s election gave the Liberals a minority. There’ve been multiple floor-crossers from the Conservatives post-election, and then they had the majority.
The problem Stop Killing Games is targeting is the DRM for these games that require a server ran by the publisher to always be accessible when you play the game. Pirated or not, all you’ll be greeted with after said servers are shut off is at best a large majority of the game being inaccessible, and at worst a perpetual error screen.
I find it very strange that we hate cops so much only to immediately turn around and revere people who’ve served in the military.
They both serve the state, the only difference (and a relatively arbitrary one at that) is the police suppresses internally whereas the military suppresses externally. They’re both geared toward the exact same end of controlling the opposition.
You can say that “they’re just following orders” but I don’t think I should have to go into detail about the pitfalls of that argument.
Don’t put words in my mouth, they taste too salty.
To an extent violence is an effective tool: that I can definitely agree with. There’s never been any social progress without blood being shed on some level.
It’s when it turns into a gratuitous means of communal catharsis that it becomes inherently counterintuitive by serving no other practical outcome than creating murderers and dehumanizers out of progressives. And these sub-humans and urchins you speak of are, whether you like it or not, extremely human, and even further than that are direct products of the societies that we’ve been complacent in for our entire lives and, likewise, we are also products of.
So to answer your question clearly, I draw the line at violence when it’s in the name of the abstract: not only because I oppose things like the death penalty as a matter of principle, but because violence for an ideal or ideals is valuable to no one and nothing. No one gains anything material by destroying for the sake of it. It’s just that: destructive. Something I wish we humans learned a long time ago, but I digress.