"Did all the creative people die off or something ?"

It cost far more money to:
* setup a new universe rather than reuse existing stories
* make up new film scenario rather than touch up/change existing one
* market new film rather than ride pre-existing marketing film
* trying to make new trend on film subject is more expansive than just follow existing trend
* etc....


Basically for a long time Hollywood flirted both being a "art" (filming) and an industry (need profit). But IMO since the 70ies roughly, onward to today, the industry part (make a profit) overtook the art part , decades by decades. Don't get me wrong, there is still film done for the sake of the art, and even in pure commercial one the directors try to put their touch, and even in decades pre-70ies commercial profit was important, but my feeling is that nowadays it took ver so much that the art is secondary.

Is it online somewhere?

I have not shared it with the world, which I think is what you're asking. Nor do I plan to, at least anytime in the near future. This reduces the attack surface and the support loading.

Otherwise, yes, it's online — it's a networking WAN application bringing together people from widely disparate locations.

All of this is true, but Havana Syndrome has all the hallmarks of mass hysteria, and no plausible explanation that doesn't either venture into the realm of science fiction, or else seriously misapprehend the laws of physics with regard to RF propagation and physical effects. Just because they're out to get you doesn't mean everything you experience is a consequence of that.

Not really -- especially for something where you need (or benefit from) a lot of expertise in one place, it's an effective use of resources to concentrate in one geographical location. We see this with everything from chocolate to finance to aerospace. You can try to spread things out artificially, but whichever location starts doing better will create a positive feedback loop, drawing in more talent and eventually playing an outsized role.

The real question is where will everyone go now that Discord is enshittified?

After putting up with Slack... slacking... for a while, Ryver ignoring bugs and getting worse over time, I wrote my own system from scratch. No ads, no randos, no spam, no cost. I am running independent family and business instances.

It's got a decent set of features, including a broad range of text formatting (it does _x_ and *x* and emoji :) markdown-like formatting too, but that's just for the comfort of our oldies), audio/video media, wide image support, file and image user libraries, various carefully designed bots, a full range of emojis, post previewing, search, and an integrated to-do system.

Sometimes, if you can, you just have to say "nope" and put your nose to the grindstone a bit.

Firstly parents are never 100% of the time watching their kids over. It would be utterly sick and not good for the kid as they age anyway as they have to learn step by step to mature , and learn to handle stuff alone. This is not a cliff from 0-17.9999 "100% surveillance" and then 18+ "0%". As kid age you give them more or less responsibility and freedom. So the kip on "parents not watching their kid and get rewarded" is stupid shit.

Furthermore when kid leave the parents watching , and internet is one point of that, any kid worth their salt can tell you how to get surfing without parent watching, parent have to expect porn/alcohol/drug outfit to NOT SELL to minor. You tried to buy porn, alcohol with under 18/21 in a street shop ? Without a fake ID good luck to that - at least for the responsible shops. Physical shop always HAD to verify age for some type of goods. Online shop simply were up to now utterly lax into that verification, dragging feet and having a laughable pop up "I am 18" : imagine alcohol selling joint , or porn cinema having just a "pinky swear you are an adult" policy... No, the reality is that online outfit simply flaunted the law on age verification - because they don't want the expanse.

Ivermectin is used to traet parsytose , namely the two you cited, both Onchocerciasis and filariasis are parasitic infections. Ivermectin in those case is an uncontested treatment. But OP is most probably from the US and where Ivermectin was told by politician that it would help with COVID. It dsoes not. AFAIR the initial paper on that was retracted, and subsequent paper showed it is useless for COVID. As such , OP is right, from region like the US where there were talk about using it for COVID, and people went into emergency room for tooking too much of horse dewormer, people still holding to invermectin as treatment for COVID are most likely politically motivated idiot.

I wish I were rich and had a huge cock. I got over it. I didn't get upset at every display of ludicrous wealth and every guy with a bulge in his pants running down his leg.

Well, uh, you're clearly... sane.

There are lots of non-pretty people who dislike that more-pretty people can make an easy living by marrying wealthy partners.

There are lots of non-athletic people who dislike that more-athletic people can make an easy and wealthy living playing sports. Should we then ban the use of photos of athlete's faces?

There are lots of people who can't act and/or aren't good-looking that dislike that actors can make an easy and wealthy living playing roles. Should we then ban the use of photos of actor's faces? Should I go on? Models? Politicians? Firemen? Cats ?

Who will protect our feline friends from the outrageous exploitation of the fact that they are cuter than almost any human who ever lived?

I mean, honey, you may be cute, but cats have you beaten like a grievously dusty rug in that department.

The entire trend of "oh no, can't see / say / look at / admire / leverage" [a photo of a face] is absurd, and would actually be funny if it wasn't so outrageously wrongheaded.

Imagine a big lab where male researchers put playboy pictures on the wall.

That's not even a remotely reasonable take or example for what's happening here. This is a woman's face . It's a "Playboy picture" only in the sense that yes, it appeared in Playboy. It's not a nude. Pictures of, just for instance, Peter Sellers and Steve Martin have also appeared in Playboy. Should we now ban crops of these gentlemen's faces from those photos from appearing in an image processing example? I mean, seriously. It's puerile. Stupid. Regressive. Ridiculous.

Do you think that is professional ?

If a person's face, even, OMG, a handsome man or beautiful woman or other, should be used for an image processing example? Yes. Absolutely. 100%. Is it professional? Yes. Absolutely. 100%. I'm not in the least offended by the idea, nor should I be. It's a picture of a face. As for beauty, again, not offended regardless: male, female, trans, androgynous.

Do you think female researchers would feel comfortable working there ?

With pictures of people's faces on the wall? Even, OMG, women's faces? Well, if they don't, they need some therapy. What they don't need is for the walls to be sanitized so they can pretend that good-looking people don't exist, aren't interesting to others, and are somehow offensive in and of themselves.

What about people who fear cats? Should we then ban all pictures of cat's faces from lab walls and studies? How far do you want to take this? What about agoraphobics? Would you have us ban pictures of the outdoors from lab walls and studies? What about amathophobics? Should all labs have privacy walls so no one sees powders on the bench? What about, OMG, a picture of a pile of powder on the wall? JFC, call the Powder Police immediately.

Look, if you — or whomever — don't want to appear in Playboy or some other publication, I'm 100% behind you. Don't. Don't sign a contract that gives them rights to any photos. As for what other consenting adults have chosen to do, just fuck off, please. The only one in need of your take is you. As soon as you start telling me what I can do with a picture of someone's face, presuming copyright issues are squared away, I'm going tell you to fuck right off.

And what is triggering you ? Are you afraid they're going to come for your porn ?

Quite aside from the neurotic absurdity of the anti-adult-porn movement, no, this is something else entirely. This is moving normal things into the realm of moral panics. It's a bad thing. Entirely. On its own.

Trump and his american taliban allies are the ones you should be afraid of.

I am about as anti-regressive and anti-Trump as you can get. Lefter-than-left in almost all social and economic aspects, conservative only where it seems to me to be logical to conserve already-achieved progress. An outlook that includes conserving the achievements of separating personal liberties from absurd moralizations insofar as we have managed that thus far.

The problem here, what makes it worthy of comment, is that this particular moral panic in-a-teacup is straight-up regressive.

of course, that probably will cost you more time than doing it yourself from the start.

Not if you have AI do it for you.

The thing is there is a moral panic

A perfect storm of toxic feminism and neurosis.

The copyright holder is okay with it, and they own the rights to the image. The researchers using it are okay with it. The only "offensive" thing [cough] about this image is that she is beautiful, and that is what is actually triggering these people.

Yeah, no. You either want a solid enterprise-grade system, or something that's accessible and fully transparent to non-technical users (like a spreadsheet). Some cobbled-together database by someone's nephew who "knows computers" is neither.

There's no problem with control if you don't give it too much power.

The not-very-subtle issue is that regardless of the limits put on hardware, the people using the hardware may not be subject to effective limits. Which is how we got Putin, Hitler, Trump, Pol Pot, McCarthy, McConnell, Stalin, Mao, etc.

People have a disturbing habit of taking up crazy and harmful ideas regardless of the source. All an AI really has to do is source the ideas. There will be people who will be delighted to take it from there.

Major Pain would like a word.