There’s no new jobs for horses after the combustion engine was invented to do physical labor

Bingo. And this time we’re the horses.

I doubt that stores will only have one employee

It’s already here, my dude. Not every store, but some are doing this now. It’s just a question of how fast it will spread.

IT guy here, I am not that worried about AI

That’s pretty much because you’re an IT guy. You’re in an industry that AI won’t replace any time soon.

If you were a cashier, or a stock clerk, or a busboy, you should be terrified by AI. The speed at which those jobs are already vanishing is astounding. The other day I was at a restaurant, and I never interacted with a human. The ordering was done by touch panel at my table, the food was delivered to the table by a robot and I paid at an automated terminal. I don’t know how many staff were on duty but it had to be a fraction of what it would have been a decade ago. I bought clothes last week and there was one employee in the store, overseeing the self-checkout lanes (but really just sitting idly by in case anyone had issues). I read an article yesterday about how robots are now being distributed to convenience stores that can clean, stock, and reorder items, so these shops will pretty soon have only one employee in them.

The gimmicky shit that your browser AI and chatbots can do is nothing compared to how this is already revolutionizing the world.

Those were the really fun days of the internet.

When surfing the web was actually an adventure and you’d actually discover things.

Not that I could ever go back to dial up speeds, but damn those days were fun.

It’s not a dick DM move as much as a lazy move. But it might feel like a dick DM move to some of them.

If the idea is to make them weaker, give them a long-lasting debuff rather than removing levels. 50% HP, -4 to attack rolls, etc. Removing levels requires a lot of work on the player’s part, and feels like it takes the game backwards rather than forwards. Giving them a debuff that they have to work to restore, on the other hand, feels like there’s a path forward to advance towards.

Thank you! I’ll give that a try.

I’m using Cloudfare for DNS. I’ll check out what they have available.

I agree Reddit is toxic. I’d argue reddit actually stopped being Reddit around 2016. But it’s posts like this that clog it all up and are partially why it is the way it is today.

I gotta agree with this. The toxicity in any reddit thread increases dramatically when the poster pre-emptively complains about all the toxicity they expect to receive. Whereas when you just ask straight without going into a whole speech about comment quality, you get much better replies. Particularly because it’s hijacking your own thread; changing it from whatever question you wanted to ask into an analysis of the comments.

You should feel shame if your inaction supports the greatest evil.

In a way, there’s an argument to be made there. If you’re not doing everything you can to help defeat evil, then you are allowing that evil some amount of support.

On the other hand, your vote is black and white. By not voting for the one person who has an actual chance to beat Trump, your actions are inarguably are supporting Trump.

These “red line” commenters are so blinded by their own purity tests that they can’t see they’re actually supporting the greater genocide. Every thread here on lemmy is full of them, and they all make the same case, but they refuse to acknowledge the actual reality, which is that not voting for the one person who has an actual chance to beat Trump, they’re actually supporting him. Not as much as they would if they actually voted for him, but still significantly.

If Trump wins by a narrow margin, it will be because of these red-liners who valued their own purity over the lives of others.

Well met, brother!

Same here. I’ve been a forever DM for decades, and every time I change to be a player I just don’t enjoy it as much. DMing is fun and I love being a forever DM.

The argument seems to be that we cannot make any determination on this unless we have first hand knowledge and have experienced the event directly ourselves.

Using this methodology makes all concept of justice moot. If we can’t make a determination without firsthand knowledge, then we can’t ever prosecute or judge anyone but our own selves. No reasonable argument can ever be made if this is the foundation one relies on. Thus, it is an absurd retreat into solipsism.

It’s not empiricism. He’s disguising nihilistic cynicism as skepticism.

His argument boils down to he think that we should doubt someone when they tell us their own feelings. He’s claiming that if we don’t have 100% certainty about something being true, then we have 0% certainty. It’s almost a retreat into solipsism, suggesting that because we can’t know with perfect certainty, then we have perfect uncertainty.

Doubting that someone who says “I didn’t want to be kissed” didn’t actually want to be kissed is to outright call them a liar. It’s victim blaming. He’s just trying to mask that behind a false veneer of skepticism and mental acrobatics because he knows that his position actually sounds appalling when presented straight-forward.