"what are you talking about? a hammer removes bolts just fine. i personally don't have an issue with the tiny bit of extra elbow grease to wedge the claw around the bolt-head and twist; if anything, it's saving me effort from having to use a wrench."
ebu
joined 8 months ago
the upside: we can now watch "disruptive startups" go through the aquire funding -> slapdash development -> catastrophic failure -> postmortem cycle at breakneck speeds
~~you might know what "monotonic" means if you had googled it, which would also give you the answer to your question~~
edit: this was far too harsh of a reply in retrospect, apologies. the question is answered below, but i'll echo it: a "monotonic UUID" is one that numerically increases as new UUIDs are generated. this has an advantage when writing new UUIDs to indexed database columns, since most database index structures are more efficient when inserting at the end than at a random point (non-monotonic UUID's).
but the NULLGE
that's one possible reason, yeah. just seems like a really odd choice -- much like the fact that they dislike "crypto promotion" but still accept payment for secrets in crypto. doesn't feel like it would be that hard to find a sympathetic furry artist willing to draw in a nondistinct style or keep work under wraps. idk
the only reason it seems odd to me is that the overwhelming majority of furries either actively dislike or hate "ai art". maybe they're the odd ones out, or they just don't care for a throwaway group
NullBulge
oh you know it was some furries
edit: their website (now down, but up on the wayback machine) uses ai-generated furry art, which few self-respecting furries (much less hacktivist ones) would touch with a ten-foot pole. or at least, the ones in the furry circles i keep. so it could very well just be opportunists
maybe you're referring to when i brought it up in last week's thread? and yeah, this is basically the same
can't wait for AI bros to invent the trolley problem
ehh, probably
Maybe I'm missing something.
translation: thinking about this too much, or at all really, would be disastrous for my political ideology and ego, so someone else please waste their time and energy typing up a reply i won't read, so i can continue having the image of an intellectual engaged in vigorous debate without actually having to do anything
best of luck with android bullshit. i'm not familiar with either psychedelics themselves or their evangelists, but yeah, would love to hear thoughts
never read this one before. neat story, even if it is not much more than The Lorax, but psychedelic-flavored.
unprompted personal review (spoilers)
it makes sense that the point-of-view character is insulated / isolated from the harm they're doing. my main gripe is that in doing so, the actual problems of the hypothetical psychedelic healthcare industry (manufactured addiction, orientalism and psychedelic colonization, inequality of access, in addition to all of the vile stuff the real healthcare industry already does) wind up left barely stated or only implied. i was waiting for the other shoe to drop; for Learie to, say, receive a letter from a family member of a patient who died on the bed due to being unattended to, a result of stretching too few staff too thin over too many patients, et cetera. something that would pop the bubble that she built around herself and tie the themes of the story together.
instead it feels like she built the bubble and stays in the bubble. she's sad her cool business idea outgrew her, that the fifty million dollars she got as a severance package doesn't fill the hole in her heart she got by helping people directly. which is neat and all, but, like. what about all the uninsured and poor Black people who never got to even try to see if psychedelics could help? what about the Native Americans who watched their spiritual medicine, for which they were (and still are) punished heavily for using, get used to make Learie's millions, for which they will never see a penny? what about your overworked staff, Learie!?
from a persuasive and political perspective, to me it seems the non-sequitur ending leaves the entire story up for ideological grabs. think it sounds like capitalism is bad? sure, go for it. think the problem is that we need to do capitalism, But Better™? sure, go for it! hell, that's basically the author's own conclusion:
But what we really need are psychedelic models for business - business that defines new standards for integrity, equity and ethics; business reimagined with a technicolor glow.
sorry, but a can of glow-in-the-dark paint over the same old exploitative business practices is not a solution. it's just more marketing. where is this even going?
If you feel called to share a message with the world, consider taking the course to work with David, and gain structure, fellowship with changemakers, and accountability to breathe life into your story.
a $3,000 value course for only $999! what a steal!! order now, seats are first-come first-serve!
you are probably a better person than i am for actually giving an explanation