Why even enable snaps? It’s like asking to have headaches.

Some people on the internet are saying it’s okay to not support Palestine because they’re not pro LGBTQ enough.

It’s an insane argument to make so I guess that’s why OP feels like it’s CIA.

I don’t mean less casual in that sense. I actually had 3 main points in mind that make satisfactory more casual.

First are the aliens. The evolution and pollution doesn’t stop which means in a way you are fighting against time. If you don’t keep up with it the aliens will attack and destroy your base. I know they can be turned off but the game is designed with their attacks in mind and you’re skipping entire production lines if you turn them off.

The second reason is factory building. I think the extra dimension in Satisfactory makes factory building much easier. If you run out of space horizontally, build up. In Factorio you better plan out how big your factory is going to be because if you run out of space you’re probably going to start spaghettifying your factory or you need to start tearing down parts of your factory to make more space. In my current satisfactory factory I just built a whole new level ontop of my old factory because I couldn’t be bothered to clean it up.

And the last point goes together with the previous point. You have so many things you need to produce. The entire belt production thing for example. If you want express belts you need to build the fast belts which needs the basic belts. If you want express splitters you’re going to have to build the fast splitter, which needs the basic splitter which requires basic belts. Meanwhile in Satisfactory if you want a faster belt you just need the new material for the belt. Factorio production pipelines are like a deep well while Satisfactory production lines are more like a wide puddle (that only towards the very end can go deep, like ficsonium fuel rods). Satisfactory has overall a wider variety of things to produce (if we exclude the tiered items in Factorio), but they’re much less dependent on each other. For example if your industrial beam production isn’t at peak performance that not going to stop you from getting the higher tier belts because they need aluminum which are built from a completely different raw material. Solve aluminum production and you get new belts. Compare that to Factorio where, lets say you want to start using express belts but you’ve been kinda winging your belt production. Well first you need to fix your fast belt production, which then means you need to fix your basic belt production which means you need to fix your iron production which means you have to scale up your iron mining.

The factory can grow over your head but Satisfactory still has easier production pipelines, easier factory planning and you can take however long you want to figure out how to build your factory. To me all of those things indicate that Satisfactory is a more casual experience.

I would personally recommend Satisfactory over Factorio. I think it’s a more casual experience while still scratching that factory building itch.

So another 5 years? IMO HDR is the perfect example why protocol development needs to be sped up. HDR is roughly a decade old at this point and (if we exclude custom implementations) we’re still in the process of working it out.

Free? When was the last time you got free food? Free in the fully subsidized by the government kind of way. Unless you live on food stamps (in which case you’re usually fucked in pretty much every other way) I can’t think of another way how you’d get free food. I guess technically dumpster diving but I’m sure it’s only a matter of time until it’s made illegal (if it’s not already illegal).

And if the food not free then more available food doesn’t matter if the people can’t afford it. We produce enough food to feed everyone and we still have people without food security.

Erm, most games? You’re better off asking which games people might remember 20 years from now. You ask me what games released in 2004 off the to of my head I could only remember Halo 2, Half-life 2 and Doom 3 (and this one I remember because of Half-life 2). I’m 100% certain I’m forgetting some huge release from 2004. But that’s the thing, only the really memorable games will be remembered.

I could probably mention 20-30 games from the 00s (maybe 50-60 because some series released a lot of games in that time frame. For example Half-life 2, episode 1 and episode 2 make up 3 games, but I remember all of them because of Half-life 2), but over a decade thousands of games were released. The vast majority of games will be forgotten.

20 years from now maybe some of man like myself remembers Space Marine 2, but it will get wiped from the collective memory.

He’s not talking about the communist manifesto, he’s talking about Das Kapital. If you don’t care to read it there are YouTube summaries such as this one . If you want to get straight into the meat of the subject you can start from chapter 4 and if you think it’s all stupid take the 5-6 minutes to listen to chapter 7 so you’d at least know where socialists are coming from when they say capitalists are stealing your money.

If you come from Windows Mint is an excellent starting point. People shit on it because it doesn’t have all the fancy bells and whistles you get with more latest releases, but on the flip side it’s super reliable and as a new user that reliability is worth more than all the bells and whistles.

But you can read the source code and get an understanding of whether it is collecting private information or not. You can theoretically also fork the code and make your own version of Lemmy where you’re ripped out the parts that collect private information. Can you do any of those things with Reddit? Absolutely not. You have no idea what exactly Reddit collects and even if you did you have no control over that collection.

What you’re doing is questioning the privacy aspect without putting in the effort to check if your questioning is valid. Nobody is preventing you from reading the source code. And if you don’t trust anyone else running the instance you can fork Lemmy, make whatever privacy changes you need and host your own instance. That goes beyond the capabilities of the average user but that’s the catch with privacy, if you can’t trust others then you have to learn more to get by without others.

That 7% might not even be people. It could be bots doing HTTP requests and throwing garbage in the user-agent.

It seems like you’re agreeing with me on the reasoning why AI art is art, you just refuse to accept AI as art. So let’s try a different way. Who says art has agemcy or intent? Clearly it’s not just “everything made by humans” because if I showed you the toilet paper I used to wipe my ass we can both agree that it’s not art. Neither is the comment I’m writing right now. So there needs to be something more that separates not art and art. The two most common ways would be the intent of the artist and the perceived intent of the viewer.

If it’s what the artist intended the am artist can prompt AI until AI generates the image the artist intended. Since the artist intended the AI generated image to look that way the intent is inherited from the artist.

If it’s what the viewer perceived we can reach the original question I postulated. If an image makes you feel something and you can’t know if it’s made by the artist or by AI, how do you know it’s art or not? If we take by whether you perceive intent of not then you’re attributing intent to art and it doesn’t matter how it was made. If you feel something and after the fact you find out it was AI generated image then it doesn’t invalidate what you felt.

You can come up with whomever to validate intent or agency and I’ll show you how AI wouldn’t play a role in that decision because AI isn’t sentient. It’s a tool like a camera or a paint brush or just chalk. We give the intent by using the tools we have.

there’s something’s highly suspect about someone not understanding the difference between art made by a human being and some output spit out by a dumb pixel mixer. huge red flag imo.

Translation. I can’t argue your point so I’m going to try characters assassination.

if the original Mona Lisa were to be sold for millions of dollars, and then someone reveals that it was not the original Mona Lisa but a replica made last week by some dude… do you think the buyer would just go “eh it looks close enough”? no they would sue the fuck out of the seller and guess what, the painting would not be worth millions anymore. it’s the same painting. the value is changed. ART IS NOT A PRODUCT.

Pretty ironic to say art is not a product and then argue that its monetary value would decrease, which can happen only if you treat art as a product.

Imagine if instead of a physical painting Mona Lisa was a digital file and free on the internet, would people think Mona Lisa is less impressive as an art piece because anyone could own it? I think it’s artistic value wouldn’t decrease, only its value as a product would decrease because everyone could get it for free.

As a thought experiment let’s say an artist takes a photo of a sunset. Then the artist uses AI to generate a sunset and AI happens to generate the exact same photo. The artist then releases one of the two images with the title “this may or may not be made by AI”. Is the released image art or not?

If you say the image isn’t art, what if it’s revealed that it’s the photo the artist took? Does is magically turn into art because it’s not made by AI? If not does it mean when people “make art” it’s not art?

If you say the image is art, what if it’s revealed it’s made by AI? Does it magically stop being art or does it become less artistic after the fact? Where does value go?

The way I see it is that you’re trying to gatekeep art by arbitrarily claiming AI art isn’t real art. I think since we’re the ones assigning a meaning to art, how it is created doesn’t matter. After all if you’re the artist taking the photo isn’t the original art piece just the natural occurrence of the sun setting. Nobody created it, there is no artistic intention there, it simply exists and we consider it art.

Valve didn’t invent lootboxes. The concept has physically existed for decades, they’re called trading card packs or kinder eggs or gashapon. The latter is the inspiration for what became known as lootboxes. The first “lootbox” was actually in the Japanese version of MapleStory in 2004 and it spread in eastern markets (because pay to win is more normalized there) and in mobile games. It wasn’t until 2009 when EA added card packs to FIFA. Hard to say if they were inspired by the lootboxes from the east of the insane football trading card market in the west, or by both. It was only after a year and a half later in 2010 when Valve added loot boxes to TF2. So Valve definitely didn’t invent lootboxes, they weren’t even the first in the west to use them. You could argue that they popularized loot boxes but even there is an argument to be made that Overwatch was a much bigger cultural hit than TF2 or CSGO or EAs FIFA games and normalized lootboxes.

I don’t mind the “Valve is bad” narrative, but at least keep your facts straight. The “strongest DRM” is also BS but others have already somewhat covered that part.

Up there as one of the most dangerous chemical compounds in the world, near 100% fatality rate.

Have you considered that it looks better because you’re used to seeing it that way? It’s the same with Fahrenheit vs Celsius, the one you’ve grown up with make more sense and is more pleasing to the eye.

The movie actually doesn’t care if the asteroid was sent by the bugs, was a false flag or just really unfortunate circumstances because it doesn’t matter. What matters is how the government reacts and the government instantly presents it as an attack.

It’s like with WW1 the assassination of Franz Ferdinand is presented as the reason the war started, but really countries were just looking for an excuse to start a war. Buenos Aires didn’t really matter because Earth was just looking for an excuse to start a war.

But how do you know humanity is being attacked or that the bugs will destroy humanity? Just like you say everything else is speculation that is also speculation. It’s also a speculation that the only thing saving humanity is the military. For all we know we’re actually the attackers and bugs are just defending their homes and if we never attack there wouldn’t be a conflict.

You can’t just take away the whys and hows and say it’s pro war. It’s satire, if you remove all the nuance then of course it’s going to be pro war. The whys and hows make this an anti-war movie.

You’re missing the satire. It’s a satirical anti-war movie. At face value everything in the movie makes sense, the bugs attacked and we’re fighting for our survival. But you really need to take a deeper look at the movie. How do we know the bugs attacked first? The government told us. What do we know about the government? The government promotes a militaristic class society where the only way to be a citizen is to join the military. You regularly see people who have lost limbs, how did they lose them? It’s not a peaceful society, otherwise people in military service wouldn’t lose limbs. You dig and dig and eventually you would have to question what the movie shows you. You can’t really be certain that the bugs attacked first because all you know is what the government tells you and that its in the interest of that government to have this war.

And the movie even backdrops that the war effort is not on the side of humanity. Towards the end of the movie roughnecks get reinforced and those reinforcements are literally children. You don’t send children as reinforcements unless you’re scraping the bottom of the barrel. It’s a very clever hint that humanity is actually losing that war.