Malle_Yeno

Based, fuck the categorical imperative lmao

We had that taight in our high school too!

(And as a totally unrelated fact I’m sure, our biology teacher was a major figure in our local church and was pro abstinence. Completely unrelated, of course)

I don’t think their point was just that it’s impossible to reproduce, more that there is skill, knowledge and choice put into getting close to the intended idea when working with AI output.

That’s interesting cuz I took their point as “you can put the exact same prompt into the stable diffusion and not get the same image each time, thus good luck trying to recreate the picture.” Which seemed to me to suggest the opposite point: That intentionality has a diminished role in creating ai images, so it serves even less of a role as art. You wouldn’t say someone sitting in front of a slot machine “intended” to get a cherry, bell, and bar on a specific pull, after all.

Often you aren’t ‘making’ the images that you capture,

But… you are though. Images would not exist without the photographer choosing to make them. Not to mention that many forms of photography (albiet older forms) have very real physical elements to them like dodge, burn, and film development. Even without those elements though, those images would not exist without the effort, intention, and presence of the photographer. The photographer also makes the conscious decision about what photos not to take, because they don’t align to their message. Intention is at every step of the process and that invites us to explore the meaning of their work.

Contrast that with AI art. The only intention you have is your prompt and choice of model. I would argue the fact that ai prompters need to “get close to” what they want their piece to say, rather than making the piece say what they want it to say, shows how starved for meaning the products are.

but there is skill and artistry in the choices that capture the moment or picture you want.

I don’t disagree with what you’re saying. But I will say that skill is not what makes art art. Skill can make you a better artist, but someone without skills can make art.

I don’t really get how this is a counter point. I don’t think anyone is contending that the pictures produced are reproducible by the same means. They’re contending that the method of production isn’t “making” art and they aren’t an artist for starting the production process.

It’s sort of like when rich people go to space and call themselves an astronaut. People have an idea of what an astronaut does and it isn’t just “space tourist.” If you fired back with “you try spending that much money and see how easy it is” then that wouldn’t answer the point of why people don’t want to call space tourists “astronauts.”

Oh hey, fellow org user!

I’m in the same boat. I don’t do calendaring that much, but agenda is what I use when I’m time blocking tasks.

My main complaint is that I can’t get it to sync to my Google calendar. I have tried org-gcal but the gpg encryption never works for me so I just gave up. I would have liked it to have easier viewing on mobile, but that’s minor enough that I don’t care. Orgzly with notifications on lets me know when its time to do something anyway.

Here’s a primer based on my own understanding. Anyone can feel free to correct if I mess something up and I can edit my post, I’m not a Muslim myself:

• Ramadan is a month on the Islamic calendar (I think the ninth one?).

• one of the pillars of Islam is that during Ramadan, Muslims need to fast from food and drink while the sun is up. Other pillars are things like praying five times a day, going on pilgrimage to Mecca, and donating a portion of your wealth annually. So it’s no exaggeration to say that Ramadan is extremely important to Muslims.

• I believe the rationale for Ramadan is that it is an observance of Mohammed’s revelation.

• there are exceptions to fasting requirements. Off the top of my head are people who are sick, women on their period, and if it would put yourself at serious risk of harm by fasting.

• Muslims use a lunar calendar (measures months by looking at the phases of the moon). Because the moon phases and procession of the earth around the sun are not in sync, this means the months on the Islamic calendar don’t line up with the seasons. So Ramadan can be in the winter or summer on certain years, and therefore sun up/sun down times can change.

If you have a Jewish state by their own admission and put a lot of meaning into their text. Israel. That state says something is Anti-Semetic. Then someone references their own text to show how they believe something to be their religious right and telling someone to stop that is anti-semitic

If I’m reading what you’re saying right, then you think the commenter was trying to mock Israel for their actions in Palestine by joking that Israel holds points about Judaism that justify child murder as sacred (thus telling them to stop would be “anti-Semitic” because their view of Judaism privileges child murdering.)

If I’m reading you right, then

1. that reading is incredibly generous to the point of inaccuracy. Because the context for this is the commenter looking at a post by the AJA, finding a piece of the Torah that reads like it supports child murder, then concludin that because this is part of Sacred Jewish Texts that it is anti-Semitic to tell “them” to stop killing children. This isn’t helped by the commenter repeatedly asserting that it is somehow encumbant on all Jews to unilaterally denounce any pro-Israel messaging by any organization with “Jewish” in its name. (I can only guess they think Jews have a radar in their heads that goes “blip” whenever a post like this is made. Otherwise, I don’t know how that could possibly be a reasonable expectation.)

2. this assumption relies on a reading of Israel as a representative of Judaism, or that either Judaism or Jewish people are accountable to Israel or it’s appropriation of religion. I’m not sure whether this assumption walks the line of or directly crosses into dual loyalty territory, but it certainly sees that line.

It would be like some Catholics killed some gay guys who were kissing and the Catholics said the gay guys where being racist and anti-Catholic.

What’s interesting about your analogy is that there is a state that proports to represent Catholicism (Vatican City) that you could have used here, but didn’t do so by using “some Catholics” instead. After all, it would be crazy to hold all Catholics responsible and hold them to account to rebut the Vaticans claims for these hypothetical killings if “soldiers from Vatican City” did the killings, no matter what rationale the Vatican would have hypothetically given for them.

I wonder if there is a state and group of people that this analysis should also apply to.

The Australian Jewish Association posting a picture like the one in the post kind of implicates Jews at large if such actions aren’t widely condemned and taken back…

No it absolutely does not. Pointing at an organization’s statement and placing the responsibility of finding and condemning the message on Jewish people is insane. Do you think Jewish people are a hive mind or something?

The Australian Jewish Association is openly a pro-Israel and right wing organization. They say as much on their website. Why are you comfortable pointing at anything the org says and painting it as widely representative of Jewish views?

Unfortunately it’s overshadowed by a massive suppression campaign all over the world to hide voices of protest and justify the occupation.

A campaign that you’re not helping to oppose by pointing at the AJA and holding Jewish people culpable for its messages, nor by citing the Torah to slander Jewish people as child killers.

Implying that Jewish people at large need to be told not to murder children because of the actions of Israel is actually anti-Semitic. Citing parts of the Torah to slander Jews when the topic is about Israel is anti-Semitic.

There are Jewish activists who oppose Israel (and Israel abuses them for their activism when they live there, or outright bans them from ever visiting Israel if they live elsewhere). And there are Jewish Palestinians too.

I’m sorry that you’ve been mobbed for sharing this view. That’s shitty.

I feel like ableism, especially against people with intellectual and personality disability, is the one sphere where nobody seems to take the objections of the targeted group seriously, and simultaneously dismiss people speaking up for the targeted group for being “virtue signalers” or as whiners. So it’s like the only solution is to just not say anything.

(Tangential but I have similar feelings about people calling others narcissists and attacking them for it, though I don’t feel like that is going to change anytime soon. Still, if the person targeted is actually a narcissist, then I feel like it’s bad to attack them for a diagnosis and symptoms they have no control over. And if they aren’t actually a narcissist, then why further stigmatize people with narcissism? It’s more complicated than the r-slur since abuse by narcissists happens and victims shouldn’t feel restricted from sharing their experiences accurately, but similar in how it’s disproportionately used to disparage and nobody takes objections to that usage seriously.)

I thought thats what’s you’re supposed to do. Wrap the blade in the wax wrap it came in, then break it up by bending it in the wax before throwing it away in the trash (still in the wax).

For what it’s worth, the reputation of the BrandonM comment on the Dropbox post is pretty overblown compared to what was actually written. The post highlighted some concerns that were legitimate in 2007. And the tone of the comments were supportive of dropbox – the poster acknowledged the feedback and offered use cases that still would lean towards Dropbox, and BrandonM responded that they made sense and wished them luck.

Generally speaking, you will be asked to swear or affirm that you are going to tell the truth, and that you understand the consequences of not telling the truth. Whether you do a whole ceremony about it or not, it doesn’t really matter – but the court will want to know that you are competent to testify truthfully and that you know that you’re not allowed to testify to things you know aren’t true.

If you’re asking “can you be forced to testify?”, the answer is “Yes but it depends.” If you’re competent to testify and the officers of the court deem your testimony important, they can subpoena your testimony. If you have a reason to contest it, you can – but “I don’t want to” isn’t good enough.