Yeah the witch char was giving me the trans vibes the whole time. Way too butch. Thought I'd give it the benefit of the doubt since an ungodly portion of female chars are built that way nowadays and since they hadn't said anything explicitly pro gay commie. Until I saw the flag on the cat carrier and then I noped right out.
It's not a bad game. Not 'overwhelmingly positive' good but entertaining enough if you like puzzle-tactics. I wasn't hooked enough to endure 'the message', though.
Guess it's a matter of taste but I prefer the model on the right. Well, if you don't consider the face, which is an abomination, like wtf those eyes?? Left looks too muscular in the waist / across the shoulders and has quite unrealistic leg / torso length. I get that some people like the super long leg thing, but it's extremely rare in real women and it doesn't scream 'fertile' to me. And I especially hate a six pack on a woman, ugh. Right has a fantastic pair of hips and good/realistic waist and thigh proportions, overall a very feminine and fertile body style. If she didn't have such mannish arms she'd be hot indeed.
If modern games gave us female models like the right rather than hip-less, waist-less, mannish lesbian looking creatures they're pumping out I'd be pretty pretty satisfied.
Back in reality, there are protections against reverse engineering products.
Not in the US. I am not familiar with other jurisdictions... are you referring to one of them?
In the US reverse engineering is allowed except under some very specific conditions such as obtaining the product illegally or breach of contract (ie you signed a contact saying you wouldn't reverse engineer).
Maybe you are thinking about patents? If you patent your product you are protected from reverse engineering with the tradeoff that the protection is for a limited time and you must divulge your secrets. If you do not receive a patent your trade secret is not (and should not be IMHO) protected from reverse engineering. But of course this wouldn't have anything to do with a copyright suit.
This type of reasoning ignores that a generative AI essentially allows millions or billions of copies to be created in relatively trivial timeframe (minutes/hours/days).
I don't think I follow your argument. Why is it relevant that a generative AI could spit out thousands or even millions of Steven King styled books so long as none of them are in violation of copyright? If I write something in the style of King because I've read a lot of his books and I like his work should he be able to sue me? Of course not. It doesn't matter if I write one book or a million; if there is no copyright violation there is no problem.
As far as I know, training generative AI on copyrighted works is fair use, though there may be some legal subtleties around this that need to be worked out. I'm guessing these copyright owners are trying to get some precedent in their favor with this suit.
IMHO AI training should be fair use and I hope this and other suits like it go nowhere. Honestly I don't think the authors have a leg to stand on here. If a generative AI is trained on a bunch of Stephen King novels it doesn't learn to reproduce the works themselves, ie. there is no copy of "Carrie" in the model data which it will spit out pieces of. A good model will learn to write in the style of King; this can be compared to a human author who also reads King's works and wants to write in the same style. Clearly there is no copyright violation in that case, so generative AI should be covered as well.
"Why? This man produces nothing. He exploits the farmer who grows the food by buying it for a pittance and then marks it up, selling it to us for more than it's worth."
" Oh yes, the farmers and city people will surely be more wealthy once that pesky middle man is gone, right? He wasn't providing value to anyone! After all, the people can just travel to the countryside and buy their produce direct from the farmer.
Wait, wait, you're telling me that isn't feasible? That there will be a massive loss of efficiency in the economy? That crops will rot in the fields? Okay, what we need is for government to collect all the produce and distribute it at a fair price. What price is that? Well, we have these experts... "
And I'm sure you know how well that sort of system will work out. My point is that the merchant is providing economic value by being the middleman, and moreover the notion that he is not is typical of leftist thought.
but it's always annoyed me that no matter the industry, the middlemen always seems to make much more money than the producer.
In a properly functioning free market the end consumer decides how much the service the middleman is providing is worth. That service includes connecting producers to consumers, taking on the cost and risk of carrying inventory, opportunity cost, and more. Those services are in fact extremely valuable, both to the producer and to the consumer. If you think about it a bit you'll see why. For example, how much are a farmer's crops worth to him if they rot in his field? How much is a watermelon that you have to walk 10 miles to buy worth?
Now don't get me wrong, there absolutely are cases where the middlemen abuse the system through anti-competitive behaviors like collusion, monopolies, and so forth, and I do believe in (minimal) regulation to prevent those exploits.
Thanks for pointing out Star Valor. Enjoy the genre and hadn't noticed this one yet. Looks like fun!
“All too frequently did critical thinking and the exercise of personal liberties expire at the altar of false righteousness, fear and authority.”
I love this quote.
I think a great argument to use with such people is to point out how we medically treat people who present other body dysmorphia issues.
If you talk with your friend about this again you might ask her to consider the treatment of anorexic children. Anorexia is just like gender dysmorphia in that the sufferer believes something about their own body which is just not true.
The standard of care for anorexia to assist the patient with developing realistic body images, nutrition education, improving self esteem and so forth. It most certainly is not to affirm the patient's faulty body image. And it absolutely is not to prescribe body alterations to 'affirm' the patient's dysmorphia, regardless of how badly they feel they need it.
The situation with 'gender affirming care' is exactly like agreeing with a rail thin anorexic girl that she is too fat, then going on to prescribe her diet drugs and liposuction surgery.
Thank you for a thoughtful response. It was a good read and I especially appreciate your historical perspective regarding how the leftist media has always demonized republican candidates. I'd spend some time replying to each bit but for the most part we are in agreement so I'd just be reiterating the points you've made, though perhaps less eloquently.
What we're disagreeing on is the best tactic for winning the general election. From what you've said it's clear that you believe getting out the republican base is the most important thing a republican candidate can do. I believe it's more important to ensure that the democratic base does not turn out heavily. We both agree that winning independents and disillusioned Biden voters is important.
Let me argue for my preferred tactic step by step:
-
The democrat base is currently a fair bit larger than the republican base: https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/registered-voters-by-party
-
There are actually quite a large number of independent or unregistered voters, so they are very important (see above ref)
-
Trump energizes both republican and democratic bases equally. Since (1) this is at best a wash for Trump but more likely a slight edge for Biden (only slight because much of the democratic base's superior size is located in heavily blue states which are not in electoral contention)
-
Trump did poorly amongst independents in 2020 and I do not think the multiple indictments (however politically motivated they are) will net him more of their support in 2024. Counterbalancing that is that independents have had a chance to experience just how bad Biden is and that may play in Trump's favor. I expect he will perform roughly the same with this group in 2024.
So, in my view this works out as a wash or slight edge to Biden on the bases and an edge to Biden on the independents if Trump is the nominee. Not exactly a winning formula.
Now, given what you've written I expect you would dispute item (3) first and foremost. I feel like you're saying that the left is going to show up in droves in 2024 to vote against any republican candidate and that's why the republican base must show up 'bigly' heh. My opinion is that they will not show up in anywhere near 2020 numbers if the candidate is anyone but Trump. There's something innate to Trump's particular brand of charisma that drives democratic animus like no other candidate that I've ever seen. They really, genuinely hate the guy in a way that they won't hate, eg, DeSantis, Ramaswamy, Lake, or whoever despite the media's best attempts.
Again, I want to reiterate that Trump CAN win. Biden is such a weak candidate. And the left's machinations with the indictments, meant to make Trump the nominee, may drive support his way if enough people realize what they're doing. Hell, maybe the Biden corruption story will finally break in a big way. Who knows.
But his path to victory is narrow. I just don't see why we should risk giving him another shot when Biden is so weak that there is a good chance that any other republican candidate not only wins, but wins easily.
Well you're definitely right about the underdog and persecution thing. And there's a good shot you're right about republican turnout if Trump gets the nomination. If he gets it I sure hope that he can ride those forces to victory.
And yeah, there's no doubt that Trump is magnificent at focusing all eyes on himself. That's his brand and he both leans into it and genuinely loves it. But... is it what we really want in a candidate for this election? If everyone is watching and talking about Trump's record and legal proceedings they are not talking about Joe Biden's god awful performance.
That's what the left wants. They know that Biden is a terrible candidate. They want to hide him in the basement again and rerun the 2020 campaign. They do not want any focus on his performance and they do not want him to have to debate. Trump will accomplish both of those goals for them, and that's why they're using the indictments to push him as the candidate.
I don't see how you can believe that with access to any data. Trump is the single most popular president among Republicans since Eisenhower.
I agree that Trump is remarkable at bringing the republican base to the polls. He's both entertaining and willing to fight leftists in a way that prior to his arrival no republican would do. Many republicans are so grateful that somebody would finally do that they're loyal to the guy under any circumstance.
That said, when you think about electability you have GOT to consider the other side of the coin. As popular as Trump is among the republican base he is equally hated among the democratic base. More dems came out specifically to vote against Trump in 2020 than any other candidate ever. Yes, the bullshit rigging of election rules "because covid" certainly helped them harvest those votes but the fact remains the Trump energizes democratic voters every bit as much as he energizes republican voters.
Given that, I view the 'gets out the base' argument as a wash at best. The election will once again turn on independents' votes. Trump is right now polling worse amongst that group than he was in 2020.
The indictments aren't there to try and get him elected, they are there to physically hobble him from doing rallies
Agree on both points. They aren't there to get him elected. They're there to make him the nominee. And they're working just as the left planned. Keeping him from doing rallies, campaigning, and sucking dry his election fund via legal bills is icing on the cake.
Look, I don't hate the guy. He was the right man in 2016 and thank god he beat Clinton. Just think how screwed we'd be if she'd gotten to nominate 3 supreme court justices. I'll always be eternally grateful to Trump for that, and for showing the right that being combative with the left is the way forward.
And I'm not even saying that Trump can't win. He can win if everything goes exactly right for him. But I just don't like his chances. A candidate who can make the election a referendum on Joe Biden's disastrous performance (as it should be) has got a much better shot.
I would love to know the thinking behind this. Do you think a candidate with a pulse would automatically have the edge over Biden?
Absolutely. Joe Biden's president has been a train wreck; it's been so bad that even the NPCs have noticed. His approval ratings are terrible, and that's very unusual for a Dem candidate since the press do such a fine job running cover for them.
When you're running against a guy like that all you have to do to win is to make the election about THEM. About THEIR record. In the general we want the R candidate to be talking about nothing but Joe Biden in every interview, every debate, every town hall. If that happens we will win. It's that simple.
If Trump is the candidate the election will be all about Donald Trump and not at all about Joe Biden. It will be about January 6th. It will be about the court cases. It will be about whatever flamboyant thing Trump is saying at the moment. And that is EXACTLY what the left want because they know that if the election is about Joe Biden they will lose.
There are a lot more voters in the base than there are independents.
That's true. And Trump does have an incredible talent for getting out the Republican base; on that front he's the best candidate since Reagan. It's his greatest strength.
If the base ain't motivated, you're going to lose.
Whether this is true or not depends on the other side of the coin: the democratic base. It's at least as large as the Republican base and unfortunately Trump's special gift for bringing people to the polls applies to dems as well. He's so polarizing that dems are as motivated to vote against him as reps are to vote for him. That's why the turnout in 2020 was so high (well that and all the bullshit rules changes around covid).
So I think the whole 'energizes the base' argument is kind of a wash. Even though independents aren't a large group the election is (once again) going to turn on them. Trump lost the group in 2020 and I believe he's polling worse among them right now than he was at the time.
But look, this whole base argument is secondary to who the election is ABOUT. If it's about Joe Biden it should be an easy win for reps regardless of the candidate. Trump is the only rep candidate that will allow the left to keep this election from being a referendum on Joe Biden, and that's why they're using these indictments to try and make him the nominee.
Oh it certainly is deliberate. The media and the left, (but I repeat myself) desperately want Trump as the nominee. The media because he SELLS their content and the left because they know how incredibly weak Biden is and believe Trump is the nominee he has the best chance against.
Just look at mainstream media messaging around Trump this year. He isn't orange Hitler anymore; they've toned the rhetoric waaay down. Remember when freaking CNN even gave him a Town Hall platform back in May?
And their plan has worked to perfection. Just go back and compare when Trump's poll numbers took off to when the indictments started to drop. Republicans have rallied around Trump because he is clearly being unfairly persecuted by the left and supporting someone in that situation is practically instinctual.
I personally believe that pretty much any of the other Republican candidates would have a better shot against Biden in the general than Trump. I know that opinion is going to be unpopular here, but I just can't see how it's not the truth. I'm not saying Trump can't win the general -- he can -- it's just that if he does it will probably be a narrow thing and everything will have to go right for him. Biden will probably not even debate Trump "You didn't even attend the Republican debates", he'll say. Biden will just hang out in his basement like he did in 2020 and the MSM will run his campaign for him. The entire election cycle will be about Donald Trump and Jan 6th, rather than Joe Biden's disastrous presidency.
Biden is so weak that any candidate without Trump's baggage is going to have a very good chance at the general. The left know this, and thus we have all the indictments.
Incidentally the indictments do double duty for the leftists. First, they greatly increase the chance of Trump's nomination, which they want. Second, they completely hamstring Trump's campaign. He's going to have to spend a huge chunk of his campaign financing on legal defense. He's going to have to spend a lot of time in court. It all means a much weaker republican campaign and a much greater chance of a Biden second term. As much as I loathe leftist ideology the elite pushing their agenda are not fools. The Trump indictments are a brilliantly nefarious bit of election engineering.
Sooo... the left craft newspeak catch phrases to try conceal their their blatant racism and disastrous policies. And of course the author's take is that conservatives are evil for calling out their bullshit. It's so odd that he didn't cover affirmative action, i.e. the only real institutionalized racism in the country right now. Oh wait, did I just do the evil verbal jiu-jitsu?
Besides how plainly biased the author is he also gets plenty of facts wrong in his naked effort to further the leftist crusade. Just one example (of many): his claim that conservatives somehow caused mainstream media, governments, and scientists to switch from 'global warming' messaging to 'climate change'. This is patently ridiculous. Conservatives hold little power in those institutions and certainly not enough to shape their narrative regarding the crown jewel of the leftist power grab playbook.
What really happened was that the left changed their messaging because 'global warming' was too definite and didn't give them enough wiggle room as the weather fluctuated over the years. For example, there was an extended period of global cooling from roughly 1940 to 1970 and global cooling alarmism was even popular for a time. 'Climate change' was chosen because it could be used to push the leftist agenda regardless of what the weather happened to be doing for even extended periods of time and so that the focus of alarmism could be pushed to events like hurricanes, tornadoes, wild fires, and so forth.
This has always been my take on it. EVs as a technology are really pretty good; there are a lot of inherent advantages over ICE like part count (reliability), efficiency, max torque at 0rpm and so forth. If the market were left to develop organically I am sure EVs would be adopted on their own merits over the next 50+ years.
But no, of course the politicians must be seen to be 'doing something' about the 'climate emergency' and so they'll push policies forcing EV before the infrastructure is there which everyone will suffer for.
You know, one of the great things about ICE vehicles is that you can economize by choosing to drive less. Pushing EVs onto the grid means the price of electricity must rise, especially if the infrastructure isn't really there. And guess what? Suddenly the cost of EVs is pushed to everyone who uses electricity; you can't economize by driving less. Of course this means that the poor (you know, those guys the leftists claim to love) will suffer most from this policy debacle.
One thing that I love about generative AI is that it's going to enable the democratization of content creation like we've never seen before. There are so many creative types out there right now with interesting ideas who could never get them produced for either lack of funding, 'wrongthink', or because the idea is just too niche.
We're going to see a tidal wave of new content incoming once the generative video creation pipeline matures. You can do short clip text to video with a lot of different tools out there now and they're improving rapidly. I think we're perhaps a year out from a workflow capable of producing reasonably good full length video content on consumer grade hardware by dedicated enthusiasts. Once that happens the flood gates are going to open and the deluge of new content content will be incredible.
I don't see it replacing mainstream media in the near term, but I do see it taking a good share of viewership going forward. Something similar to how podcasts and amateur video producers on youtube have already taken a chunk out of MSM revenue, but on steroids. I'm looking forward to that.
They used a covariant matched control group, which is statistically valid but not as high quality as an in study control, of course.
And yes, the 'alternative explanation' thing needs more looking into; they threw out nearly half of the elevated troponin readings as not jab related without explanation. That is, even their alarmingly high reported myocarditis incidence may be conservative.
Oh, I've added a new video to OP. Dr. Prasad's analysis is excellent, if you haven't seen it.
Thank you for that; Dr. Prasad's analysis is excellent. I've added your link to OP.
This is the highest quality study that I have seen that draws a direct causal link between the mrna injection and myocarditis because it actively looked for signs of myocarditis in booster recipients post 'vaccination' rather than correlating data on, eg, hospital visits for myocarditis of mrna injected vs control. That is, the other studies have been 'reactive', so to speak, rather than proactively looking for damage as this one did.
It looks pretty compelling to me, and in a way that will be harder for the MSM and elites to ignore; that is, a direct causal link from injection to heart damage in a very significant percentage of recipients. I have no doubt that they will downplay it, of course, but this one just might break through.
My understanding is that the 777 patients in this study all got the mrna shot and that their outcomes were compared to a matched control group.
I'm no expert on heart health but I've heard many times that there is no 'mild and transitory' heart injury. Anyone care to weigh in on this?
The 1/35 who developed myocarditis in this study were reported as having 'mild and transitory' symptoms, yes (and if MSM covers this at all, they will focus on that). However, as far as I know long term prognosis for myocarditis is not well understood; it is quite possible that even mild cases have negative longer term health consequences.
Also, "Patients in this study were warned not to exercise for 30 days after vaccination if myocardial injury markers were detected." That is, they were given advice that the general public has not been given and which may have had mitigating effects on myocarditis damage sustained.
You are of course right, MSM will try to ignore this as hard as they can. From what I understand the paper is accepted and peer reviewed by the well respected European Journal of Heart Failure but has not yet been published (2:20 in the Campbell video). It may well get a bump in visibility when it's officially published.
Yep, myocarditis incidence at nearly 3% is truly appalling -- over 1000 TIMES worse than we've been led to believe and what is even now being promulgated, eg: https://covid19.nih.gov/news-and-stories/covid-19-vaccines-myocarditis
Occurrence of a life threatening side effect (which also has negative long term risks) at that rate pretty much explodes the risk/reward math for the covid jab for healthy and especially for young people.
The fact that this is a high quality and peer reviewed study from a respected source will make it harder for the mainstream media to ignore. They probably still will, but I think there is at least a slim chance this gets some coverage.
“If you want to talk about pay disparity, the Women’s World Cup players get paid out 20 per cent of the total revenue.
“The men get paid out seven per cent. As a percentage point they’re getting much more.
I found that hilarious. Women are still complaining even though they're making 3 TIMES as much as the men are on a percentage of total revenue basis. It sounds like the men should be complaining tbh.
In fact, the whole "equal pay for the 'same job'" mantra is completely ridiculous. The correct formulation is equal pay for equal value. Pay must be correlated to value added; anything else is an economic inefficiency and makes everyone poorer.
All the top posts on https://www.reddit.com/r/self right now are pretty great. Maybe the mods are too busy wailing and gnashing their teeth to do enforce The Narrative at the moment? Wonder how long it can last...