The irony is that if they put it at or near the end of the video, after I have learned that I like whatever I watched, I am much more likely to do so, because I often really do just forget to like things, and a reminder near the end would in fact make me go ‘yeah, this was good, I’ll do that’.
But if they ask me to do it at the beginning, I won’t do it until I have seen enough to decide I do in fact like it.
Consider this question: how is it that anyone under the age of 40 today has ever smoked?
By the time they were born, the bad effects of smoking were well understood. By the time they were teenagers, not smoking should have been as obvious as not jumping in front of a train. People already addicted find it difficult to quit, but it in no way explains anyone starting.
The question is different and yet very similar, because the things you mention wind up in a similar way. Somehow people start in that route even though it should be obvious not to. And these things you mention are much easier to fall into than smoking because parents, family, etc are all pushing it on people. Smokers generally aren’t pushing their kids, nieces and nephews, grandchildren, etc to smoke, and somehow smoking still proliferates to some degree, just consider how much more difficult to avoid it is for those whose families are actively encouraging them to fall into these methods of belief and hate.
No, but they should be public to everyone, and not hidden unless you jump through hoops.
Because so-called second amendment advocates are really just gun nuts, and so over the years they have worked hard to maintain the right to keep and bear guns, rather than arms.
Thus knives, swords, halberds, maces, and all other ‘arms’ have had restrictions go unchallenged, or at least, not challenged by an extensive and well funded network of advocacy.
It’s not implying he can’t be bothered, but that the machine can do a better job.
…which may be true, depending on just how bad he is at writing. Like, I was just watching this classic the other day. If this guy writes like some of those people, the machine may infact be better.
That said, for most people it’s stupid, and the tech isn’t able to do a better job at expressing such things.
Yet.
Thank you, I understand better now. So in theory, if one of the other search engines chose to not have their crawler identify itself, it would be more difficult for them to be blocked.
I’m kind of curious to understand how they’re blocking other search engines. I was under the impression that search engines just viewed the same pages we do to search through, and the only way to ‘hide’ things from them was to not have them publicly available. Is this something that other search engines could choose to circumvent if they decided to?
It irritates me that so many forums and media sites allow you to edit your posts at will. There’s one site I go to that I like very much - it has a 5 minute edit window, and after that, your post can no longer be edited. You can’t change what you said, pretend you never said things, etc, once you say something it remains. It would be nice if more sites were like that. Or at least, if you edit/delete something, for there to be an option to check the history to see what it used to be, so if you try to delete some comment you made people can still check it. Whether it’s informational, or it’s because you’re trying to hide something you said that you realize was actually super shitty and people are getting angry at you for it, I prefer things to stick.
To be fair, not using punctuation and paragraphs should be a bannable offense on every form of written media to exist!
These convictions were for state level crimes that happened before he was president. So completely outside the scope of the official act thing.
That decision is probably going to be used to get him completely out of the classified documents case though, not that he really needed the extra help since that one was already being presided over by a crony judge he appointed.
Yeah, I mean, Trump already got convicted of felonies and then nothing happened. Did he even pay a fine or something for that? I heard about the conviction and then… absolutely nothing.
Better to try to get them not to vote at all I think. Push that and it might convince them to go vote when they might possibly have been willing not to. And other offices are also very important.
Many of those economic issues are a source for other problems. Resolving them may not solve the other problems, but those other problems also can’t be solved without dealing with one of the major causes first.
It’s like having a house with a giant crack in the wall, and some people want to fix the foundation while some want to fix the crack. Fixing the foundation isn’t going to fix the crack, but if you fix the crack without fixing the foundation, it’s just going to break open again.
I feel the reference went over your head…
You know, eventually, after we’ve seen enough of this shit, I feel like there’s a point we have to ask…will no one rid us of these turbulent justices?
If they raise the prices in those countries they would make less money because volume of subscribers would go down enough for total income to decrease.
If they lowered the price in the US, they would make less money because the subscribers they would gain would not be enough to offset the reduced income from each.
That’s it, it has nothing to do with operating costs or fairness, it’s just a question of what price point they believe will make them the most money in a given market.
Yup, exactly. The only regulation I’d be in favor of for AI is this: if it was trained on data which can be accessed by or was posted by the public, it must be freely available, such that if anything in the training data was posted online in a way anyone can see, then then I have free access to tge AI too.
Basically any other regulation, even if the companies whine publicly, is actually one that benefits them by raising the barrier of entry and making it more expensive for small actors to create AI tools.
They’ve gotten smart enough to use reverse psychology on this kind of thing.
This very much feels like “Only please, Brer Fox, please don’t throw me into the briar patch.”
No shit! That’s our fucking election system. After the primaries, we wind up withtwo candidates that most people don’t like, and we vote against the one we think is worse. It’s been this way for a very long time. Case in point:
https://youtu.be/riDypP1KfOU?si=xwlInd1CS9p7rYcT
Acting like this is shocking news is disingenuous bullshit.
Counterpoint: toaster 1 looks like Hitler. Use toaster 1.