I’m getting flashbacks to Tumblr’s “female-presenting nipples” censorship rules during the porn ban.

I think the first stat in the graph is the most important one and really speaks to the reason for the last one. I said this is another post about this article, but video games have become their own kind of third space. Going out with friends has become so expensive, whether you’re going to a movie or something else, and in a lot of places you can’t go to hang out without having to spend money anyways, so video games have become a replacement way to hang out with friends. And that’s before you start talking about stuff like friends who moved across the country for work or something.

There’s definitely studies on it. I don’t know how they measure them, but it’s all about the number and type of cones in your eyes because there are a few different types that see different colors. This is why tigers are orange - because their prey lack the cones that see red, so the tigers look like the rest of the background foliage.

I’ve heard that women have more cones in their eyes as well, which leads to a more nuanced sense of differentiation between colors.

The context that we’re talking about here isn’t somebody that you know personally and have permission from/are talking to mutual friends of. We’re talking about publicly announcing a stranger’s dead name to everybody who reads this post and the justification that it’s okay because they once had 15 minutes of internet fame from a video going viral before they transitioned. At best, it’s a paparazzi-esque invasion of privacy, and at worst, it’s straight up doxxing.

A. Hyperbole, look it up.

B. Why do you think it’s okay to dox people?

TIL the internet doesn’t understand hyperbole so long as it’s a trans person using it.

Did you miss the part about how my safety is dependent on going stealth? I moved somewhere where nobody knew me after transitioning for a reason. A stranger going around and telling random people my dead name would be like a stranger going around telling random people that a person is in witness protection and what their real name is. Again, your threat index isn’t universal.

The first rule of self-defense is that a battle not fought is a battle won. The second rule is if you have to hurt a man, you hurt him so bad that you need never fear his vengeance. If he can stand up, he can come right back at you.

Except that’s not at all what’s happening here. We’re not talking about somebody we know personally with their permission or anything, we’re talking about an actress who got into pornography after having an emotional video go viral many years ago. Her dead name has nothing to do with that, and if you had even left out the fact that she’s trans, most people probably could’ve figured it out if they even bothered to go check out the original video. Abd if they didn’t? It wouldn’t make a difference in their knowledge of the subject. They’d still know that a woman who had an emotional video go viral years ago later became a porn actress. All her dead name adds to this is a possibly paparazzi style invasion of her privacy.

Does it add any useful context, though? I don’t know either name but I do remember the “Leave Britney alone” video being a thing (and the fact that the person in the video turned out to be right all along when the truth about Britney’s situation came out years later), so the added context that she’s trans and what her dead name was is meaningless to me other than to say, “She used to be a man. She’s a woman now, but she was a man before. Did you know that? That she was once a man? Because she was. Here’s what her name was.”

As a trans woman, whose safety is so dependent on being able to go stealth in society, if I found out people were going around talking about me like this, I’d take a rusty icepick and make sure that they never think in words ever again. Lack of malicious intent doesn’t mean that no harm was caused. Your threat index is not universal.

This could have very easily been left at “Trans woman X got into porn after her viral video Y” and there would be all the context needed to figure out who they were and what video they were in without using their dead name. Hell, you probably wouldn’t even have to point out that she’s trans for people to figure it out. Cis people treat the privacy of trans people the same way that the paparazzi treats the privacy of celebrities.

But how does the little spoon factor into all this? Is it being stepped on by the “big foot” like a Lego, or are there other factors at play?

3-player main campaign plus a 3-player co-op operations mode that will start out as a side story happening simultaneously to the main campaign that they’re going to add more content to going forward.

It sounds like they’re specifically catering content towards me.

Plus the whole system was created with the idea of getting people used to recycling so when better, more efficient forms of recycling came into use, people would already be recycling.

Too bad that whole “better, more efficient” part never really happened.

You should check out this article on the attacks on paintings by Jewish American artist Barnett Newman. Especially this quote on the piece Who’s Afraid of Red, Yellow, and Blue III, which is basically just an 8’ by 18’ block of red with a blue stripe:

After the 1986 attack on Who’s Afraid of Red, Yellow, and Blue III there was a conversation concerning who would do the restoration of the painting. Despite the work provoking a lot of anger in museumgoers due to its simplicity, the painting was incredibly intricate, and experts knew that it would be nearly unattainable to complete a faithful restoration. Although the work was mostly just an expanse of the color red, both the shade and technique Newman used were difficult to replicate. Prior to the slashing, it was almost impossible to see brush strokes on the work with the naked eye. Additionally, one of the cardinal rules of restoring paintings is that everything done to the work should be reversible, something that would be very difficult to do with such large cuts through the body of the work. The painting sat damaged for many years because no conservationists wanted to touch it.

The dude who did eventually volunteer to restore it more or less went over the entire painting with a roller and red paint, and you can tell immediately.

Me when people are lying about images being generated works and submitting them to art contests and winning stuff like college scholarships:

AI “Artists” are idea guys. They don’t care about the process or the knowledge or the experience of creation, only the Content that gets produced that they can consume. They’re middle managers claiming the work created by the skills of the workers under them as their own effort. Image generators simply allow them to do a corporation and avoid paying people for those skills or putting in the effort to learn themselves. It’s just a new form of coloring books, only created using ethically dubious methods because the companies creating the programs are likely violating fair use laws.

Edit: This isn’t to say that people who use coloring books are inherently bad or anything, but when you’re trying to pass your page from a coloring book off as a gallery-worthy exhibit and the book was made by a company tracing artwork and using it without permission to make a profit? Yeah, then you’re a bad person. Especially if you go on to talk down to artists because you made yours so quickly, etc.

Calling pieces where an artist used an “AI” to do things like touchups “AI art” is like calling a piece where somebody used the magic wand tool “Magic Wand art.” Because that’s what the magic wand is - an algorithm written to identify similar elements and isolate them. That’s essentially the beginning steps of an LLM. “AI” has been used in this regard for decades now, it’s only that AI has become a buzz word for companies looking to replace worker skills with a cheap fascimile so that they don’t have to pay their workers that has led to the concept of “AI art,” by which it can be safely assumed is referring to generated images.

And I believe the word that OP was looking for is intent. As Adam Savage put it, AI art lacks intent. Whether a piece is good or bad doesn’t matter, you can feel what the artist had in their head and what they wanted to express with a piece, and that’s what he cares about when looking at a piece of art. When a 6 year old draws a dog, it doesn’t matter whether that dog is a stick figure or a work comparable to the Mona Lisa - you know that they wanted to express that they like dogs. AI has no intent. It simply combines pieces of its data set, transforming art created with intent into a pile of different details that no longer have their original context.

I could see this as part of a metrics thing - if Google sees a big drop in users right after the rollout, it’s harder to brush it under the rug as having no correlation.

Ohio is what we in the US might call a “fly-over state.” Meaning, a state that you want to fly over/through as part of a trip to elsewhere, rather than a place that you want to visit.

Coal is often radioactive when it comes out of the ground, and thanks to poor regulations, is often radioactive when it goes into the powerplant, leading to radioactive particles coming out of the smokestacks and landing anywhere downwind of the plants.

More people have died from radiation poisoning from coal than from all of the nuclear accidents combined. But, as you said, 200 years vs. 70 years. But, also, nuclear is much more heavily regulated than coal in this regard due to the severity of those accidents. The risk of a dangerous nuclear power plant is nowhere near as large as commonly believed. It doesn’t take long to find longlasting environmental disasters due to fossil fuels, from oil spills to powerplant disasters. They’re used so heavily that it’s just so much more likely to occur and occur more often.

All this to say that fossil fuels suck all around and we should be looking at all forms of replacement for them, nuclear being just one option we should be pursuing alongside all the others.

One thing to remember about the mining issue is that coal mining is just as bad, and coal is often radioactive as well. More people have died from radiation poisoning due to coal power/mining than have died from radiation poisoning due to nuclear power, even when you include disasters like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.

Of course, we’ve also been mining and using coal a lot longer, but the radioactive coal dust and possibly radioactive particles in the smoke from coal plants is something that many people are unaware of.

But, like you said, the big thing is to move away from fossil fuels entirely, and nuclear power has its own issues. It doesn’t so much matter what we go with so long as we do actually go with something, and renewables are getting better and better all the time.