Yntec

5 ms·

1.
by Yntec 4y ago
> but just beautiful images, are not art. But the definition of art can't depend on your knowledge of how was it made. I can show you two beautiful pictures and ask you if any of them is art, and you'd know I was trying to tric
2.
by Yntec 4y ago
That's true. But the thing with technology, and the reason we've kept up with Moore's law is that someone eventually has a bright idea that leaves current methods and improvement extrapolation in the dust, and then the real t
3.
by Yntec 4y ago
Oh, nice take! Reminds me of the chess world, long time ago chess entities that could beat any human in the world have existed, people wouldn't play them because losing all the time was boring. But then came the neural network chess en
4.
by Yntec 8y ago
Please search for my reply on the "this is why you're here" case on this page for more info. Basically, I claim that to reach such conclusions you need an imaginary pedophile in your mind that gets aroused by the material (bu
5.
by Yntec 8y ago
I don't really know what @2:33 is about, but let me take a guess and ask you: would you let actual children see the contents that appear @2:33? And if they did, would they be horrified? If you asked them to describe what was happening
6.
by Yntec 8y ago
My problem has been with people assuming a context, and an intent. I keep repeating myself, but a comment on a cat playing with yarn ball video linking to another cat playing with yarn ball video doesn't seem different to me than comme
7.
by Yntec 8y ago
You just won that bet.
8.
by Yntec 8y ago
Okay, can you reword that? What is wrong with kids doing squats? If nothing, then, what is wrong with timestamping kids doing squats? The only thing I see wrong here is the sexualization, but it'd be us doing it if we assume the reason