EldritchFemininity

At that point, why not just 3d print one or something. Save money by not giving it to a scummy company, and hey, throw a raspberry pi in there or something with an emulator and you can probably actually run Virtual Boy games on it.

Ironically, Windows users have generally felt that way with every new Windows version after 7. Vista was painful for a lot of people and 7 was basically Vista but with the problems finally fixed, and every version since then people have complained that the newest version feels unfinished.

And in a lot of ways they have been. In 10, there are at least 2 different UIs for navigating the system and settings. Some options have been migrated over to the newer one, some only exist there, and some still only exist in the old version of the settings. And then 11 made it even worse by moving a number of frequently used options in the right-click menu into a second menu that you have to open after you right click.

People hated 10 at first, too, but by now they’ve gotten used to it and Microsoft has ironed off most of the rough edges people hated. But it’s been building for years and this pattern has seemingly hit some kind of breaking point with the present-day circumstances.

Kirk certainly knows what it’s like when the blood’s pumping.

So it’s always had a negative connotation to it? Because that’s what I’m saying. That Google is using the word by its correct definition, but adding to the original definition a subtext that side loading is a bad thing. Hence, they’re twisting it from its original meaning to a negative connotation to the average person (who has never heard the word before).

It’s like Windows’ UAC popping up with a warning when you try to install just about anything. To the average computer illiterate person, they’re going to second guess whatever they’re installing as “dangerous” while the rest of us are like “shut up Windows, of course I want to install the Nvidia drivers, that’s why I clicked on the damn thing.”

By justifying getting rid of it as “security concerns”. This is the first time the average user will have heard the term, so it will be linked in their head to this and therefore as risky/dangerous and they won’t question why Google would want to make it harder, if not impossible, for people to install apps or other software without Google’s explicit permission.

The walls around the garden get taller, and those inside won’t question why there aren’t any doors.

Fingers crossed. I’ve been waiting a long time to get back into VR and replace my OG Vive.

Google is twisting the word to justify their purpose of preventing people from installing anything that isn’t from their walled garden. So anything that sounds even close to support for that motive is going to be met with pushback, even if it is a word that existed before Google’s use of it. Google’s implicitly saying that installing something from anywhere other than their store is something nefarious or otherwise bad/risky. Google is trying to perform the same kind of security theatre as the US with the NSA at airports.

Honestly, it doesn’t matter to me where you install an app from because you’re simply installing it. Whether that’s from Google’s storefront, Apple’s, or somewhere else, you’re installing an app. The circumstances where I’d need a term to specifically say that I’m installing an app from outside the default app store would also be covered by simply saying “I got it from GitHub (or wherever).” It takes the same energy to answer the question of where you got it from regardless of whether you say that you installed it or you side loaded it.

They mean a physical Target store, not a phone app. Target can track customers walking in and out the door and what they buy, how long they stay, etc. but they can’t track anything about you if you just go to a different store, especially something like a small business which isn’t hooked into the ad data sponge.

The issue people have with making the distinction is that Google is trying to spin the narrative and make side loading seem like a dangerous and bad thing to the average user base who don’t know any better.

They’re taking umbrage with you agreeing that quantitative usage of a storefront makes something simply installing vs side loading a program. Because it helps Google’s narrative in a way.

There have been leaks about the Deckard 2 for years now and people always say that Valve will announce it any day now. I’ll believe it when I see it at this point.

And all the big “innovations” have been in venture capitalist bubbles like AI, NFTs, etc. or soured by the companies and people behind them. I hear SpaceX has been doing some cool stuff, but all I can see is Musk making a flying Cyber Truck for his ego on NASA’s dollar. One of the reactors at 3 Mile Island is coming back online, the first US nuclear power project in who knows how many years…in order to fuel Microsoft’s AI data centers.

Advancements in tech used to be about pushing the boundaries of what we’re capable of. Now, it’s all about pushing the boundaries of how much money the oligarchs can stuff into a single pocket.

Facebook is the best and worst thing to have happened to VR. The Quest is an affordable headset that basically killed all competition and innovation in VR for years. Still holding out hope that the next Valve headset will come out eventually and shake up the scene again.

I honestly have no idea, that would be going much farther back in Reddit’s history than I was on the platform for. It reminds me of Google’s “Don’t Be Evil” motto, though. It’s true until somebody realizes that there’s a lot of money to be made doing the thing that you said you wouldn’t do.

Most likely because they care less about the idea of federated platforms and more about “not Reddit” and “not Twitter.” I’m one of those users personally (not that I don’t care about the idea, it’s good to have a return of what is effectively 3rd places of the internet). Most of them, like me, probably came here during the Reddit migration and moved to BlueSky when that took off in popularity.

If I didn’t dislike the Twitter format as much, I’d probably spend more time on BlueSky than forgetting about it until one of these threads appears, and I’d probably be on Tumblr still if I didn’t only use social media from my phone and Tumblr didn’t have such a horrible app.

People are going to go where the people are, for better or worse, until something pisses them off enough to go somewhere else. I originally created a Twitter account to follow a bunch of artists I followed who left Tumblr during the porn ban. I didn’t care for the platform (I hate the tweet format) but that was where all the artists went so I followed. Similarly, when the 3rd party api fiasco hit Reddit, I left and immediately went looking for where the people from the subs I read by “newest posts first” went - except the communities fractured and disappeared. It was the possibility of them reforming here that made me go through a GitHub to figure out how to make an account (spoiler: they never really did reform). I had no idea what a federated platform was supposed to be or do.

The fact that Lemmy is so niche is its biggest advantage and its biggest curse. You either love how small it is, like Reddit back in the day, or you suffer the lack of population for the things that you’re into, and the very nature of the federated platform makes it that much harder to centralize enough people in one niche to form a community (there we go again - centralization). Lemmy is the Wild West frontier town to the big social media giants’ company towns.

Because Bluesky claims that they want to develop their relay tech into a standard like HTTPS or something, and then hand it off to a nonprofit to maintain so that it’s usable by everyone. The tech has the possibility to be decentralized/federated baked into it, but whether or not it will be anything other than a pipe dream/marketing hype has yet to really be seen.

They present themselves as basically a Lemmy.world equivalent to those who care about decentralization, which is not a significant portion of their user base. For most people it’s just a buzzword, I believe.

There are people who take Work from Home jobs in high CoL areas and then move to low CoL places to pocket the difference, so that’s not too far off from what already happens.

Plus, on the other side, incentivizing companies to hire locally could cause companies to be selective in their location to maximize the convenience of commuting from multiple areas for reduced overhead, or increase the desire for increased urban density and lessen suburban sprawl, which is literally choking the life out of places in infrastructure costs alone. Garbage and water services for the wealthy suburbs is subsidized from the taxes of poor people’s apartment buildings.

Of course, we all know that what would really happen is that we’d see the return of company towns where you sleep in the same bed as 2 other guys on 8 hour shifts so the bed has 100% occupancy 24 hours a day.

This is only one study, but I saw an article a few months ago talking about a study by a major phone company that found that the vast majority of people (80% or more IIRC) either didn’t care about AI features on their phones or actively disliked them.

I think most people don’t really care one way or another but hate that it’s being shoved into everything, and those who know the stats on how often it’s wrong are a lot more likely to actively dislike it and be vocal about their dislike.

If we’re going with the “suicide” analogy, I’d say that AI is suicide like eating fast food/takeout every night instead of cooking for yourself is. It’s an easy shortcut, but you are probably missing out on vital nutrients (in the case of AI, that would be critical thinking skills or potentially missing out on finding a hobby that you actually really enjoy). You could instead learn to cook yourself (which some people really enjoy and find as a meditative kind of experience), hire a nutritionist to make a meal plan, or even go to a restaurant instead.

Personally, I don’t think it’s a great analogy, and there’s a much better basically 1 to 1 relationship between Gen AI and retail therapy/fast fashion. They’re all bad for the environment, rely on worker abuse in many different forms, and all work to further our dependency on corporations and enrich their owners.

People often make the argument about Gen AI “democratizing” art, but that’s nonsense. Art was already “democratized” by easy access to not just tools like a pencil and knowledge, but by the fact that even before the internet art was the most easily accessible it has ever been in history. You could go to a store and buy a canvas to put on your wall in the 50s. A century before and that would’ve been something only the wealthy could think of doing by hiring an artist to make a custom piece. People complain about artists charging too much, and yet a large portion of artists charge below minimum wage for commissions.

And that’s not to say that I hate AI for the sake of hating it. I hate the implementation of it. Gen AI is just a more complex version of the Gaussian Blur tool in Photoshop. But it’s fed with effectively stolen labor and robs artists of potential clients, people from possibly discovering a new thing they love doing, and clients from developing a working relationship with the artists that they commission. There’s a great post that Temmie of Undertale fame posted recently about how when Toby can’t describe what he wants animated he’ll act it out and so he danced around with a broom to show her how he wanted the idle animation for an old man to go. That’s the kind of stuff that can come up in the commission process. Obviously that’s not gonna happen to everyone, but half the fun of art is the collaboration. It’s like playing a co-op game.

This is basically just the sanitized internet conflict again, only it’s the parents wanting to force adult-only spaces to disappear instead of advertisers. What’s next, banning gay and lesbian bars for not catering to straight people?

I shop with credit cards that give me 2-5% back on purchases. I pay off my balance every month and have never paid one penny in interest or penalties in over a decade. My credit cards therefore pay ~$1,500/year tax free.

I don’t really have anything to add as this is pretty much all spot on to how the wealthy live, but on this one I’d like to point out that you’re not actually making money - you’re just taking back part of the money that you already paid. That money isn’t paid by the credit card companies, they’d never be dumb enough to leave money on the table like that. They pay it through increased transaction fees for the businesses, who eat the extra cost through higher prices. There are states that do something similar with their recycling programs. They give you 5 cents per bottle you recycle at the center, but you paid a 5 cent bottle deposit when you bought them at the store. You’re not making any money, or even making back some of what you paid the store. You’re just getting your deposit back.

Maybe you somehow reduce your taxes by cycling that money through a cash back program? I’m not well versed on finances, so I won’t even try to theorize on that, but it certainly isn’t free money or something.