Right. So let’s imagine everyone uses Puppy OS for the phone OS? How does that prevent phone manufacturers from creating a new phone every year? It doesn’t. I’ve already pointed it out with Pixel phones, TWICE. Pixel 5 runs the same OS as Pixel 9 and obviously it hasn’t prevented Google from releasing 3 different version of Pixel 6, 7 and 8, and then also Pixel Fold and 4 different version of Pixel 9. If every Pixel phone moving forward would be stuck on Android 14 they’d still be able to release a new version every year because you still get marginally better camera, marginally more memory, marginally better processor etc. Using Puppy OS wouldn’t prevent manufacturers from spitting out a new model every year because the other issue with phones is that they’re not repairable. If your screen breaks or battery dies or charging port stops charging you can’t really fix it without paying usually over half the price of a new phone, which means people just buy a new phone. A fixed OS doesn’t solve hardware failures which leads to people buying new hardware. Regular wear and tear is the main reason for e-waste, because you can’t fix your fucking phone. This is literally the reason EU is forcing phone manufacturers to make replaceable batteries a thing again, because it’s the primary point of failure for most phones.

Solving e-waste doesn’t start with the OS, it starts by making hardware easy to repair or replace. And that’s exactly what fairphone does. And it’s super weird how you’re both “the hardware on fairphones sucks” and “hardware necessity is an illusion”. You’re undermining your own points.

I’ve already pointed out that most Pixel phones run on the same OS, it doesn’t prevent Google from churning out new phones on a yearly basis because hardware is independent from software. The same OS doesn’t prevent sticking in a better camera of a better CPU, it only prevents adding new features to the OS.

What you’re suggesting could work if ALL pixel phones had to run on the same OS which effectively stifles technological advantage. I don’t think you fully understand the impact of your suggestion. What you’re basically saying is that 99% of personal computers should be using windows 3.1 (or I guess actually MS DOS) because that’s the OS Microsoft created and that’s what ran on the first PCs. Even the jump to Windows 95 is impossible because it literally might not fit on hardware that’s designed to run windows 3.1. You could argue that it’s a silly argument as it would start now, but guess what, 40 years from now Windows 11 can be just as ancient as Windows 3.1 is right now. If we somehow figure out quantum computing for consumer market you couldn’t really benefit from it because you need to support windows 11 that has no idea how quantum computing works. Not to mention it actually makes entire companies obsolete because a brand new company could make an OS that supports quantum computing and everyone switches to that company OS because that OS doesn’t need to support decades old hardware.

Forced baseline OS does not solve the issue. It only creates worse issues.

I say to all manufacturers and developers just get one OS and stick with it, and then there is no further e-waste if it’s cross compatible from a dual core spec hardware upward it just runs faster the higher spec you go, there will be no hardware or OS incompatability just an ever improving OS one fits all old and new.

But where does the new hardware come from? Google has one OS that is the same over all Pixel phones, it doesn’t stop them from churning out a new Pixel every year. It also doesn’t solve the problems Fairphone aims to solve which are a) ethically sourced materials and b) reducing ewaste by having higher repairability.

Let’s say they create their own OS. How is the OS going to make sure the underlying hardware is “fairly” acquired? It’s not. Nor is the OS magically going to turn a non-repairable phone into a repairable one. That’s the reason why Fairphone makes their own phones, so they can verify their materials are ethically sourced and the phone is repairable.

All fairphone are goinn to do is become e-waste just with a smaller footprint than the rest but e-waste none the less, I do not see them surviving long either.

Actually the company recycles its phones. If you don’t like your Fairphone you can send it to them and based on the model and the state of the phone they’ll reimburse it. And how long is long because Fairphones are over a decade old?

The idea behind the fairphone is that it’s made fairly. It looks overpriced because they’re paying a fair price for the raw materials + production costs. If other companies didn’t exploit third world countries their phones would be priced similarly to fair phone.

You don’t buy fair phone for the specs, you buy it so you can be certain some child in south Africa didn’t have crawl in a mine to get the the metals that go into phones, or have a child sit in a factory putting together the chips that go into phones. Or you buy it because you don’t want to throw your phone away after 3 years because you couldn’t replace the battery or the screen or the charging port.

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 it’s broken and unplayable because the developer/publisher renders it unplayable and that’s where the initiative comes in. The initiative wants to make it so that if the developer/publisher wants to turn off their official services they don’t render the game unplayable.

You’re stating it like it’s somehow objective, but it’s not. Battlefield 3 and 4 have been delisted and it’s a matter of time until EA turns off services and those games are left for dead. Battlefield 4 still averages above 1k players a month. It’s clear that EA won’t see value in keeping the light on and will turn off the services in the near future, but do you think the players will go overnight from “I want to play this game” to “This game is worthless”. Don’t you think the people playing BF4 wouldn’t want to continue playing after EA shuts down the services keeping the game running?

I think it’s pretty obvious that there are two groups who decide if a game has value or not, the company and the customers. Right now after purchasing the game the customers no longer have a say whether a game has value or not. Only the company has a say and if the company says it’s not worth it then the people who bought it just have to suck it up. And that’s the idea behind the initiative, to make it so that the company isn’t the only one who gets to decide how long you get to use the product you’ve purchased.

I think if we expanded the idea of bricking software beyond gaming, if companies could destroy any piece of software they made, you’d also be in favor of this initiative. Imagine if Microsoft could brick Windows 10 when they’ve officially stopped supporting it. Or Nvidia effectively bricking their older cards by stopping official driver support. Would you then also argue that the software has lost value and it’s acceptable behavior?

I usually agree with Thor but on this one I probably couldn’t disagree more. Based on what he says I’d say his mindset is completely opposite to what his initiative wants to do. He essentially said he doesn’t see any value in (live service) games after they’ve reached their end of service and from that perspective I can understand how this movement is pointless or even potentially damaging. But that assumes that the (live service) game loses value after the company stops supporting it and I just don’t think that’s the case.

A lot of games continue live despite the company ending official support for them. If anyone remembers there’s a gem called Wildstar that was shut down in 2018. Despite the game being shut down and even trademark has expiring people are still running the game on private servers. People are putting in sweat and tears to make sure a game is preserved. Imagine how much easier it would be if Carbine or NcSoft had released proper tools for it. Even Vanilla WoW exists because private server did it first and Blizzard wanted to get some of that money.

And another point that Thor made how it’s not about preservation because you can’t preserve a moment in time. I think that’s a completely disingenuous argument because it feeds into FOMO. If you join WoW today you will never experience “the golden age of WoW”. Maybe another game you might be interested in is having a golden age right now, better buy into the hype. You can’t argue against preservation like this because it’s literally impossible to preserve a moment in time except in your memory so you have be at that exact place at that exact time to really experience that thing, that is FOMO at it’s purest form. That argument against preservation is an argument in favor of FOMO.

Thors points come for a belief that live service games don’t need to be preserved after official support has ended, and he views this initiative through that lens. Of course he will have issues with the initiative because he’s opposing the idea at a fundamental level. It’s like asking a racist how to be more tolerant with other races, the answer obviously is that you shouldn’t want to tolerate other races. And just like you would ignore a racist I think you should ignore what Thor has to say on this matter because anything he says is against the idea of preservation.

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.

So is Twitter but that didn’t stop Twitter from becoming wildly popular. YouTube shorts are just tweets in a video format.

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.