![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/c47230a8-134c-4dc9-89e8-75c6ea875d36.png)
The majority of the current ‘democrat’ party in the US are Neoliberals. Yeah it’s a right wing ideology, that’s the whole point of recognizing that even the ‘left wing’ here are still primarily conservatives.
The majority of the current ‘democrat’ party in the US are Neoliberals. Yeah it’s a right wing ideology, that’s the whole point of recognizing that even the ‘left wing’ here are still primarily conservatives.
I guess if you want to be arrested.
Look, I’m not advocating for anything here, I’m not suggesting anyone who’s ever said ‘girl’ should be thrown in prison.
I just pointed out that it’s a specific term used to refer to female children, thus it makes sense that search engines are using it to weed out unwanted searches for child porn. It’s a reasonable step to take on their part, and absolutely doesn’t affect anyone that isn’t looking for CSM. Just use any other word for women. Hell, there are plenty of other derogatory words for women you can use that will still get you tons of results just in case denigrating women is an important part of your searching process.
Now you’re getting it! 👍
Feel free to take your own advice.
That’s nice. Also completely pointless since you can’t seem to grasp a simple concept.
I don’t fucking care.
If you don’t want to be confused for a pedo, stop calling women ‘girls’ when searching for porn. It’s not the 90s anymore. This is only going to be more common as the fight against AI CSM escalates.
Nothing mistaken, I just don’t give a rats ass. Using a 20 year old, wildly exploitative porn franchise that went bankrupt after its founder was accused of creating child porn is not exactly a convincing argument that ‘girls’ is a useful term to find porn of adult women.
Obviously it’s often used colloquially for women. That doesn’t change what it literally means. What I’m trying to point out here is that if you’re looking for porn, don’t call women ‘girls’, because it sounds like you’re looking for children. It’s pretty fucking simple.
Ironically calling a group of geriatrics ‘girls’ doesn’t change the meaning. It’s a joke that apparently went over your head.
It’s not an offense, it’s a word for children. Which makes it a very poor choice when searching for explicit content unless you’re looking for CSM.
Obviously, most of Mega’s traffic is piracy, they have no interest in doing that. The point is it’s an actual comparison instead of the nonsense you brought up.
Of course no individual site is going to singlehandedly stop criminal acts. Glad you agree it would be exactly as effective as I suggested.
I mean, I know Google has been shitty lately, but Wikipedia isn’t hard to find: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_(penology)
I’d wager Nintendo has put some fear into a few folks considering developing emulators, but that’s the only comparison to be made here. The lack of any real consequences for individuals downloading roms is why so many are happy to publicly proclaim their piracy.
Now, I bet if megaupload added an AI that checked users uploads for copyrighted titles and gave everyone trying to upload them a warning about possible jail time, we’d see a hell of a lot less roms and movies on mega.
But having that tracking shown to you has a very powerful psychological effect.
It’s pretty well established that increasing penalties for crimes does next to nothing to prevent those crimes. But what does reduce crime rates is showing how people were caught for crimes, making people believe that they are less likely to ‘get away with it’.
Being confronted with your own searches is an immediate reminder that the searcher is doing something illegal, and that they are not doing so unnoticed. That’s wildly different than abstractly knowing that you’re probably being tracked somewhere by somebody among billions of other people.
“Most of the time, when people ask me a question, it’s the wrong question and they just didn’t know to ask a different question instead.”
“I’ve tried asking ChatGPT “How do I get the relative path from a string that might be either an absolute URI or a relative path?” It spat out 15 lines of code for doing it manually. I ain’t gonna throw that maintenance burden into my codebase. So I clarified: “I want a library that does this in a single line.” And it found one.”
You see the irony right? I genuinely can’t fathom your intent when telling this story, but it is an absolutely stellar example.
You can’t give a good answer when people don’t ask the right questions. ChatGPT answers are only as good as the prompts. As far as being a “plagiarizing, shameless bullshitter of a monkey paw” I still don’t think it’s all that different from the results you get from people. If you ask a coworker the same question you asked chatGPT, you’re probably going to get a line copied from a Google search that may or may not work.
How is that structurally different from how a human answers a question? We repeat an answer we “know” if possible, assemble something from fragments of knowledge if not, and just make something up from basically nothing if needed. The main difference I see is a small degree of self reflection, the ability to estimate how ‘good or bad’ the answer likely is, and frankly plenty of humans are terrible at that too.
Yeah, that one is real competition - at least gameplay wise - and a wonderful example of taking inspiration from Pokemon while still making something their own. It really deserves more attention than it got.
I mean, it’s more competition for ARK than Pokemon. I doubt Game Freak learns anything from all this unfortunately.
It’s only a ‘fair analogy’ if you’re comparing two things you own. You make videos for Tiktok. They own that content, not you.
Some of us are just here because they killed our app. Don’t assume everyone is here for the same ‘moral’ reasons you are.
Which is exactly the sort of origin that makes a fun character.
She’s doing exactly the same thing the dude you just accused of oppression is doing.
The main difference is that she has billions of dollars to promote her perspective, and millions of followers that listen to what she has to say. The dude “oppressing” her in this situation is just some random nobody on a site that might as well not even exist for all the cultural power it wields.
You had a pretty reasonable argument on the first post, but this took a hard turn into bullshit real quick.