rnd0

26 ms·

271.
by rnd0 4y ago
That's what I say every time my room-mate and I discuss our subscriptions.
272.
by rnd0 4y ago
In that specific case? You're a fan of the essential core series, that's how. But as a general rule? You can be a fan of any part of a series and your fandom is completely legitimate. If you know all the details of three movie
273.
by rnd0 4y ago
Now there's food for thought!
274.
by rnd0 4y ago
That assumes that the person coordinating didn't get whacked because they were involved in the wrong part of a different operation
275.
by rnd0 4y ago
It is a gimmick and I think people are right to call out it being over sold as a superior experience -that aspect feels scammy to me. I think that's a large part of the negative reaction from myself and other people. That doesn't
276.
by rnd0 4y ago
> Do your iTunes purchases from today will still function 60 years? My mp3 collection from 2001 still works just fine. I'm not getting your point.
277.
by rnd0 4y ago
>This is like the time I decided to give Battlefield 2042 another try. It took like 2 hours to download, going less fast than my 100mbps connection. That sounds like my experience the last couple of times I've tried playing star tre
278.
by rnd0 4y ago
I don't know, for me it's a onedrive subscription with extras -especially since I'm sharing the cost with a friend of mine. I'm peeved because the friend I share the costs with is using libre office so I may have to pay
279.
by rnd0 4y ago
They tend to last all of about two months, in my personal experience.
280.
by rnd0 4y ago
>CSI probably didn't help matters here. Indeed, it did not. It's so notorious it has it's own wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI_effect
281.
by rnd0 4y ago
I'm pretty sure that the lack of police accountability is a far worse problem, to be honest. It eliminates any chance that we can reform law enforcement to any significant degree.
282.
by rnd0 4y ago
Personality conflicts aside, both pieces of software are different enough from each other that it's basically comparing apples to haute cusine. Myself, I've been using 86box since almost the beginning in large part because of the
283.
by rnd0 4y ago
PCem is still being developed, though. 86Box has done a lot of improvements on the codebase over the last 5 years and has developed its' own community; meanwhile pcem got bogged down in drama and stagnated. I followed pcem and saw enou
284.
by rnd0 4y ago
If you weren't there, you don't know the details or motivations of what went on it's probably a good idea to not take sides.
285.
by rnd0 4y ago
>such were the levels of toxicity involved that at one point a senior staff member at 86box was bouncing around ideas mid-tirade speculating that a PCem contributor was in a sexual relationship with the project lead (put less delicately)
286.
by rnd0 4y ago
The fork was five years ago so I'm not sure how that's relevant? Do we need to mention that NetBSD is a fork of 386BSD everytime a NetBSD story comes up?
287.
by rnd0 4y ago
Honestly, I'm more curious about the way that wasps evolved and what path that took. Especially since it seems like they have managed to adapt (in some cases) to living eusocially without sacrificing individual members.
288.
by rnd0 4y ago
It's been good to have the chance to articulate my annoyance and examine it closer and think of what alternatives I'd propose. I'm glad to have something more to go into future discussions with than inarticulate gripes. All i
289.
by rnd0 4y ago
>I mean, if you're not going to assume good faith, what are you doing in the conversation in the first place? It depends on the specific conversation. One example (which I gave earlier) might be to counter misinformation -for the sa
290.
by rnd0 4y ago
I care because I feel that the attitude is destructive and that there are better approaches that can be taken. I've outlined them other places ITT already. >As we see here you still waste time arguing with people even when you assum
291.
by rnd0 4y ago
>Why would you bother engaging someone in conversation at all if you didn't assume they were engaging in good faith? Not all interactions are a conversation -at least not necessarily an on-going one. For instance, in a political thr
292.
by rnd0 4y ago
>And this attitude is why we can't have nice things. Swing and a miss. I'd encourage folks reading this thread to go back and read the entire thing; or at least the paragraph that my quote was taken from. The thought that I pos
293.
by rnd0 4y ago
>Assume good faith initially because it least has a chance of being productive, but the moment bad faith is detected, either withdraw or "punish" (and propagate social signals that bad faith arguing has been detected so others
294.
by rnd0 4y ago
Actually, I'm being completely honest and forthright. I have not seen that term used in that context and the context was particularly passive-agressive (itself a sign of bad faith). From my point of view, the post that I replied to was
295.
by rnd0 4y ago
>People who don't assume good faith are arguing in bad faith, that is the crux of the issue. Assuming -as I've already said; that they're arguing. There are other reasons for interactions. >So, how do people like you ge
296.
by rnd0 4y ago
I may have the technical issues wrong, but I'm not sure once you factor in training that the cost is marginal. ChatGPT isn't open source; and unlike stable diffusion you can't simply self-host a trained AI equivalent. What
297.
by rnd0 4y ago
ONLY a sith deals in absolutes!
298.
by rnd0 4y ago
>I don't waste my time arguing with someone who might be arguing in bad faith. I don't waste my time arguing with someone who is lying, or who doesn't believe in anything they themselves say, or who is simply trying to man
299.
by rnd0 4y ago
Ritalin? Therapy?
300.
by rnd0 4y ago
I could be wrong, but to me this feels like one of those things that eventually gets an open implementation -I'm a little surprised it hasn't already. Of course a large part of what makes it interesting is the training which requi

More ›