You mean buying the only actually functional ARM-based laptop built with a level of quality and support that I can expect to continue working with a bloat-free UNIX-based OS for the next decade before I switch it to Linux for probably a decade more? And it starts at $1,100?

What are those people thinking? It’s not even Copilot+ ready! /s

I don’t see any evidence that this product line is intended only for rich people. Things are generally more expensive in the early adopter stage, and Apple doesn’t make anything that they don’t want to see widely adopted.

The original iPod held 5GB and cost $400 ($700 in 2024 dollars).

The original iPhone came in a 4GB and an 8GB model that cost $500-600 ($700-800 in 2024).

The iPod is gone, replaced by the ubiquity of the iPhone that it evolved into. The cheapest iPhone today is the SE at $430 and it wildly outperforms the original hardware.

If you want an MP3 player with as close to the specs to the original iPod as you can find, you can get one for about $20, and it still outperforms the original iPod.

If the Apple Vision line is successful, I expect to see $20 generic VR headsets that blow everything we currently have out of the water by 2040.

Copyright is a mental illness

Well, I happen to have a great deal of respect for and routinely offer my support to those who suffer from mental illnesses, so maybe find a better way to say this that doesn’t denigrate disabled people.

So I can pirate as many movies as I want as long as I’m only watching them?

Let these rich guys keep talking for a sec. I can get behind this somewhat.

25th Amendment. If the President is incapacitated, the VP takes over.

It’s not a great situation, but I’ll take it over the guy promising a dictatorship.

Yes, unfortunately.

Hear me out…

I think there might be a connection between poast-dot-org and poa-dot-st. The latter is a Neo-Nazi Pleroma instance. I haven’t seen any proof that the domains are connected. Might not be.

Copyright infringement becomes theft when you make money off of someone else’s work, which is the goal of every one of these AI companies. I 100% mean theft.

Look, you’re the one who set the Louvre as the standard for what is or isn’t art. If you want to keep moving the goalpost, by all means, explain what you actually think makes something art.

I’d say it is a bit more complicated than that for car doors.

Car doors work fine on every car but a Tesla. They aren’t some new technology invented by Tesla where design flaws like this are understandable. Tesla just does things so badly that they invent brand new dangers that only exist with their vehicles.

You don’t want it to fail and come open

That isn’t what “fail open” means. It doesn’t mean that the moment the battery dies all the doors fly open. It means that when the battery dies the doors aren’t latched shut like a bank safe.

At a minimum, the key should offer a way to open the car from the outside when the battery is dead. It’s completely asinine to put the only emergency latch on the inside of the car where you can’t use it, especially since it is hidden so deep most people can’t find it without the manual.

What’s controversial or unpopular about what I said?

You’re giving Elon Musk’s awful cars the benefit of a doubt by pretending that this isn’t a completely reckless design flaw that should never have existed in the first place, and you are deliberately misinterpreting what “fail open” means to make it sound like a ridiculous solution instead of the industry safety best practice that it actually is.

Also, you’re complaining about downvotes, so expect even more now I guess.

My take is that you can train AI on whatever you want for research purposes, but if you brazenly distribute models trained on other people’s content, you should be liable for theft, especially if you are profiting off of it.

Just because AI has so much potential doesn’t mean we should be reckless and abusive with it. Just because we can build a plagiarism machine capable of reproducing facsimiles of humanity doesn’t mean that how we are building that is ethical or legal.

Hell yeah on correctly recognizing what year was the first year of the 21st century! Thinking the new millennium started in 2000 is a pet peeve of mine.

If inclusion in the Louvre is an obligatory status to be considered art, then makeup is absolutely art.

https://presse.louvre.fr/lancome-x-louvre-1063000212057/

I’ve edited people’s makeup and faces as part of the process of learning Photoshop, so I understand what you’re saying. There are perfectly normal applications for this.

The issue is intent. A lot of men think that women are “lying” when they wear makeup. They think that the most valuable quality a woman can have is natural beauty, and treat makeup as trickery.

There’s no shortage of men who think “You’d look better without makeup” is a compliment too.

An app like this would inevitably be used to help streamline the process of harassIng and negging women online.

There’s also the matter that women can put great time and effort into their makeup, and having someone remove their hard work from an image and throw it back at them is quite insulting. A makeup artist is still an artist and they likely don’t want their peers wielding tools designed specifically to nullify their work.

It shouldn’t be illegal or anything. No law against being an asshole. But it isn’t an app that will be used with good intent in most cases, and we should definitely pay attention because the “modify pictures of other people’s faces and bodies” use case for AI appears to have the potential to do a great deal of harm.

The headline rambles a little bit, and by the time I got to “, died”, I thought the toddler was dead.

These are some insane mental gymnastics.

Congratulations on the power trip purging every comment that calls you out.

C’mon guy…

Funny how they argue that they are content neutral every time someone calls them out for having Nazi customers, but they are more than happy to censor for capitalists.

Removed by mod