No it doesn't?
I just googled it to be sure, but i already assumed you meant 'spyware' (which is something completely different), referring to the telemetry (which i can get is a sensitive thing, but anonymous usage statistics to know where to focus their development sounds like a decent idea, and afaik they implemented it with respect for the user)
Are you on purpose missing the point?
The point the person you replied to made is that she didn't completely stop drinking alcohol once she was diagnosed to have a terminal liver disease due to alcohol use.
So first of all, she must have drank a lot more than 3 drinks a week to have terminal liver disease in her 30s that's due to alcohol (yes, all of that is in the article)
But the issue is she didn't stop drinking after being diagnosed, she reduced her consumption but didn't stop it.
If any of the above is incorrect, feel free to correct us, but making a point that's completely missing the facts that are being talked about here doesn't add anything to the discussion.
Do you always change the topic to try and "win" online discussions? And act so unnecessarily hostile for no reason at all to people who want to have interesting online discussions?
I find the topic of whether it's intelligence the most interesting part of this. It raises a lot of questions. That the current hype is ridiculous that a lot of the energy expended on it is a complete waste, and that most of the ways AI is used is beyond stupid isn't even worth talking about, that's just plain obvious.
Lol, wtf XD
"That doesnt change anything about the current situation even if thats true though."
Yeah, i assumed me writing "I agree with most of your points" conveyed that. Do you always imagine random things to attack instead of just reading what people actually write?
wtf O_o
I just don't like people being like "but it's not real intelligence" while we don't even know what intelligence is, and we're thus avoiding the one part of this stupid hype that could be interesting:: philosophical questions about our own intelligence/humanity/....
I agree with most of your points, but i don't entirely like the "this is not intelligence" line of thought. We don't even know yet how to define intelligence, and pattern recognition sounds a LOT like what our brains do. The hype is of course ridiculous, and the ways it's being used is just stupid, but i do think pattern recognition could be a solid basis for whatever we end up considering intelligence.
Don't agree with this, there's a huge difference between a forum and something like lemmy: how what you see is determined. On a forum as long as discussion is happening, a thread stays on top. On a more social media site like this, things only remain relevant a couple of days at most, while forum threads can go on for years. That makes sites like this more focused on short and shallow discussions, where forums imo allow for more in depth discussions.
Keeping up a server that allows migration has negligable costs for a product the size of minecraft. There is no excuse....
I would really love to hear your explanation why you thought the sky gave it away XD
That's like the most regular looking sky ever XD
Just wondering, do you know that reading the article where it's all explained in detail is an option?
Before the change 3% of facebook users agreed to be tracked, after "pay or be tracked" suddenly that jumped to over 90%. The entire point of GDPR is that privacy is a really hard thing to grasp, and that companies have capabilities most people can't even imagine. So the GDPR demands consent to be given freely. Giving users the choice between yet another subscription or "consent" is clearly not free consent, your "free consent" doesn't jump from 3% to 90% if you're not basically coercing your users.
"yeah, but they have the option to pay". Yeah, and then i can start paying for google (each service seperately with complex bundles of course), and facebook, and reddit, and twitter and tiktok and .... and of course everyone has hundreds of dollars to spend on online services to continue using the internet the way we've been using it for a decade.
"yeah, but you could use other services", yeah, i could go to a facebook alternative where none of my friends or family are. Or a youtube alternative where hardly anyone posts videos or... These sites have gained a natural monopoly by being free, and now suddenly i have to pay to not have my rights violated.
And will this long term mean sites like facebook, youtube, ... become unprofitable and collapse? I for sure hope so yes. These companies gained a monopoly in big parts of the internet, and will make insane profits of being in that position either via ads or subscriptions. This is a terrible place for society to be in, and the sooner they collapse, the sooner we as society can start figuring out what would be a model that does work and isn't hostile to its user.
I recently asked questions about HDR & automatic refreshrate switching for a linux HTPC, and the advice in the end was just to find whatever distro already has it all precofigured (and conflcting advice whether i'd need Wayland or X)... i was kind of amazed how poorly supported it appeared to be.
So yeah, if steam is like "yeah, we won't try to venture into that swamp", can't say i blame them after having dared to ask how to get it to work myself.
Meh, i've talked to organic farmers here in Europe (and real organic farmers, not bigscale "we're technically organic), and even they were against the current proposals. the plan appeared to be very naive, and would just end up making farming (even the most ecological variants) extremely uncertain and always at direct odds with nature preservation, and as some others have already said, we would just end up in more food being imported from parts of the world where farming standards are way lower, where there is more worker exploitation, etc... that can't possibly be the goal of an environmental plan either.
There of course is a big conflict between farming & nature preservation, but then adding that to the pile of bullshit farmers already have to endure (a lot of regulation, big supermarkets dictating the price at which they 'may' sell, even outside the proposal that was cancelled here, a lot of constantly changing environmental regulations, expensive farmland because they're competing against wealthy people who want to put some horses there, ...)
And if the end goal is to have nearly no farming left in Europe, then that should be clearly communicated, and not just adding random things to the pile of stuff farmers have to deal & contend with.
I'd say the issue is that if honey isn't vegan because you're causing harm to bees, isn't most of modern vegetable agriculture at least equally harmful to bees & other insects due to all the pesticides being used?
Or is it just if we directly involve bees, it's bad, but if we inflict greater harm in a less direct way, it's acceptable?