How about dashing (and other cool Celeste features), thigh highs (with pride variants), having cute moths around, ..?
As that post's title suggests, it is a recreation of this one, not the other way around. Check the post dates.
You're just reaffirming that AI bros don't understand art.
I've heard some scary numbers when it comes to waste, but I don't have a source, nor do I intend to go digging for one because I'm already depressed enough. But you addressed neither of my other grievances. In the end I'd just prefer a future where work is automated, and not creativity nor thinking. I will speak up in this small space where I might be heard, when I believe corporations are betting on getting people hooked on AI because they've never learned to think or bothered to create for themselves, just so they can extract massive profits.
By all means, keep investing and being interested in specialized AI, AI research and AI ethics. But stay away from generative (text/image/video) AI.
Yes.
Find a fitting meme template or create a new one. You don't need amazing photoshop skills. Or share your idea and let someone else do it.
Don't waste electricity and water, or legitimize generative AI to get your point across.
AI is distasteful to artists, disrespectful to our environment, and dangerous for the creativity of future generations.
The comic is giving me generative AI vibes.
Blåhaj Lemmy and its communities have certain rules regarding respecting of one's identity and their chosen pronouns. This extends to identities and pronouns you might not agree with. Those are the rules of that space. You broke the rules. The consequences followed. This is just basic stuff.
On the other hand, if you believe certain people to be trolling with their neopronouns, then engaging with the matter in any way, is kind of "falling" for it. So, just ... don't engage? This is the internet. People get to be (more or less seriously) humanoid animals, fantasy creatures and races, and if you can't get along with that, you can expect to get thrown out of a space that explicitly welcome anyone regardless of their identity or pronouns.
30% is the industry standard across the board, with the exception of Epic which takes 12%. However, Epic has already shown that it's ready to dump loads of money into store exclusivity deals and tons of free games, so I will argue it's for the sake of growing the number of users and developers using their platform.
But do they, or any other competitor or similar store, offer the same functionality as Steam? rtxn already mentioned some. And there's more. And then there's the fact that Valve is using all that money not only to stuff the pockets of alread rich people (not that Gabe isn't a multi-millionaire if not billionaire, idk), but actually puts it back into the industry: Their own store, Linux/Proton (you may not care, but Microsoft becoming a monopoly in PC gaming is no good), and hardware (with their Steam Deck handheld, and VR stuffs).
Steam might be the biggest player when it comes to storefronts, but it's because they've actually earned it. And they're not actively preventing other competitors from entering the scene (other than existing). In fact, they keep trying, and keep failing, and then going back to Steam.
I'm not opposed to more money going to developers, but let's not single out Steam, who (perhaps besides GOG? I am not familiar enough with it) is doing the most for users and develpers.
cross-posted from: https://pawb.social/post/13665271
Source: Furaffinity
There's been a hostile takeover at Gitea and it's now run / owned by a for-profit company. The developers forked the project under the name Forgejo and are continuing the work under a non-profit. See also: Their introduction post and a page comparing the two projects. Feel free to look up more, since I haven't familiarized myself with the incident all that much myself. Either way though, maybe consider using Forgejo instead of Gitea.
I think both instance admins have a valid stance on the matter. lemmynsfw appears to take reports very seriously and if necessary does age verification of questionable posts, something that likely takes a lot of time and effort. Blahaj Lemmy doesn't like the idea of a community that's dedicated to "adults that look or dress child-like". While I understand the immediate (and perhaps somewhat reactionary) concern that might raise, is this concern based in fact, or in emotion?
Personally I'm in the camp of "let consenting adults do adult things", whether that involves fetishes that are typically thought of as gross, dressing up in clothes or doing activities typically associated with younger ages, or simply having a body that appears underage to the average viewer. As the lemmynsfw admin mentioned, such persons have the right to lust and be lusted after, too. That's why, as a society, we decided to draw the line at 18 years old, right?
I believe the concern is not that such content is not supposed to exist or be shared, but rather that it's collected within a community. And I think the assumption here is that it makes it easy for "certain people" to find this content. But if it is in fact legal, and well moderated, then is there a problem? I don't believe there is evidence that seeing such content could change your sexual preferences. On the other hand, saying such communities should not exist could send the wrong message, along the lines of "this is weird and should not exist", which might be what was meant with "body shaming".
I'm trying to make sense of the situation here and possibly try to deescalate things, as I do believe lemmynsfw approach to moderation otherwise appears to be very much compatible with Blahaj Lemmy. Is there a potential future where this decision is reconsidered? Would there be some sort of middle-ground that admins from both instances could meet and come to an understanding?
I happened across a podcast episode that was about AI, that I was listening to with friends. I don't know if you want to take away anything from it but I figured I'd mention it here in case anyone wants to. Look for Serious Inquiries Only episode 477, "Debunking Bad AI Research, and Bad Coverage of AI Research". For you it might not be super interesting, since it's trying to explain the matter to those who might not already know much, debunking some bad studies, but towards the end they talk about the environmental impact. And this is with two experts, I believe.
One thing that pops up there is that training a "moderately large" model requires produces twice the CO₂ output of an average American over their entire lifetime. They mention water usage is really bad, too. And "moderately large" refers to what a University research team might be cooking up. Big companies have magnitudes more environmental impact from training their huge models.
(There is also a part 2, with the followup episode.)