We don’t know for every one for certain, but we have plausable explanations or backgrounds for nearly every cryptid and mythological creature. Usually, the explanation is either a diseased animal, misidentified bones, or someone looking to make money.

So we give up with a half-measure, that helps the rich moreso than the poor without addressing the underlying issue?

This isn’t a helpful or sustainable approach. Should we give up on climate change because reducing carbon output is hard, or say, “Well, as long as you don’t use coal, its good enough.” Of course not. Not to mention that making immigration and/or citizenship more accessible isn’t an impossible task at all, esspecially relative to climate change or weath inequality.

In those few, extremely rare cases are enough to fuck up a nation’s politics, immigration isn’t the problem.

They’re rare, but not impossible, esspecially when it comes to the involvement of powerful/rich governments, corporations or individuals. We already have enough of that, no reason to make it easier for effectively no gain.

Edit: esspecially considering that ability to chose the location your child is born in is based primarily off wealth rather than moral character or anything else positive.

I don’t see why voting or having political influence in a country you have no commitment to is a good thing. It seems to me that it just makes it easier to abuse the systems in place without having to live with the consequences.

You’re seriously using the guy who was removed for refusing to follow orders (orders to stand down and NOT escalate) half a century ago, to argue NATO’s current position on the defense of Taiwan?

The question wasn’t about expecting people to be born in the country they wish to live, it was about whether citizenship by jus soli should be an option without conditions.

But why should it be an option if you don’t and/or don’t intend to live there?

Wouldn’t the correct answer in that case just be to make it easier to immigrate and gain citizenship, rather than expecting you to be born there?

I theoretically, I would say I’m generally against it, with the understanding the citizenship is not the same as permission to live/work in the country nor the same as permission to access services.

Citizenship should generally mean that the country is your “home country” rather than place of origin. In that case, citizenship should be given to those who want to commit to participating in and improving the government and culture of the country (if only because thats where they spend most time). Where you were born doesn’t relate to this strongly. What matters is how much time you’ll spend here in the future, such as if your parents are citizens or permanent residents (meaning you’ll likely grow up here) or if you want to move to the country permanently.

Basically, where you’re born shouldn’t matter. What should is your intent on living in the society you’ve gained influence in.

I wouldn’t say the problem is with their length or simplicity. I’m sure I could enjoy a short anthology in one of these universes. The bigger problem is the fact that its embedded into a game, effectively breaking the pacing and flow of both the written text and the game. Ideally, this would at least allow you to use environmental and visual storytelling alongside the text, but this is rarely done well enough to justify all the downsides, so you end up with the worst of both worlds.

The Bethesda (and related) RPGs. The core gameplay loop just feels so shallow in both, meaning most of your time is spent wandering with nothing meaningful to do, or in spammy, often janky combat. The parts that are interesting, the character builds and the lore, aren’t super involved in most of the game. You spend so little time building characters, and most of the lore is in written logs and books.

Try using the title:() operator. For example, title:(warrior OR knight). It can also be combined with others, like title:(sale) OR flair:(offering). I’m sure theres also options for content and metadata, but I don’t know them off the top of my head.

Honestly, at this point Reddit’s search doesn’t even really feel worse than the competition. Its terrible at fuzzy searches, yes, but the fact that it has functioning search operators that it consistantly respects is so useful. Being able to search “(add OR insert OR update) AND (rest OR restful) NOT sql” is so useful.

Of course, a good fuzzy search would also be great, but no one offers that anymore, so…

Its not so much social media that ruined it, as capitalism and centralization.

Forums themselves are a form of social media, and they’re (mostly) great. For Reddit and Lemmy, debatably the best part is the social elements, like the comments sections. The problem isn’t the interaction or the “social” nature of it. Its that these platforms have turned into psudo-monopolies intent on controlling people and/or wringing them for every penny.

Thats not to say toxicity and capitalistic exploitation didn’t exist before either. The term “flame war” is older than a lot of adults today. Unlike today though, platforms were both more decentralized meaning they were easier to manage and users could switch platform, and were less alorithmic meaning that users could more easily avoid large, bad-faith actors. You’ll notice the Fediverse have both these qualities, which is part of why its done so well.

IMO, the best fix to this, would be twofold. A) break up the big monopolies and possibly the psudo-monopolies. Monopolies bad, simple enough. B) Much more difficult, but I believe that what content a site promotes, including algorithmically, should be regulated. Thats not to say sorting algorithms should be banned, but I think we need to regulate how they’re used and implemented. For example, regulations could include things like requiring alternative algorithms be offered to users, banning “black box” algorithms, requiring the algorithns be publicly published, and/or banning algorithms that change based on an individual’s engagement. Ideally, this would give the user more agency over their experience and would reduce the odds of ignorant users being pushed into cult-like rabbit-holes.

Funnily enough, I heard a lot of people saying that they specifically liked it because it was a “return to classic, retro Zelda.” The difference being that their idea of retro Zelda was the original rather than Link to the Past or Ocarina of Time.

You seem to be missing what I’m saying. Maybe a biological comparison would help:

An octopus is extrmely smart, moreso than even most mammels. It can solve basic logic puzzles, learn and navigate complex spaces, and plan and execute different and adaptive stratgies to humt prey. In spite of this, it can’t talk or write. No matter what you do, training it, trying to teach it, or even trying to develop an octopus specific language, it will not be able to understand language. This isn’t because the octopus isn’t smart, its because its evolved for the purpose of hunting food and hiding from predators. Its brain has developed to understand how physics works and how to recognize patterns, but it just doesn’t have the ability to understand how to socialize, and nothing can change that short of rewiring its brain. Hand it a letter and it’ll try and catch fish with it rather than even considering trying to read it.

AI is almost the reverse of this. An LLM has “evolved” (been trained) to write stuff that sounds good, but has little emphasis on understanding what it writes. The “understanding” is more about patterns in writting rather than underlying logic. This means that if the LLM encounters something that isn’t standard language, it will “flail” and start trying to apply what it knows, regardless of how well it applies. In the chess example, this might be, for example, just trying to respond with the most common move, regardless of if it can be played. Ultimately, no matter what you input into it, an LLM is trying to find and replicate patterns in language, not underlying logic.

The LLM doesn’t have to imagine a board, if you feed it the rules of chess and the dimensions of the board it should be able to “play in its head”.

That assumes it knows how to play chess. It doesn’t. It know how to have a passable conversation. Asking it to play chess is like putting bread into a blender and being confused when it doesn’t toast.

But human working memory is shit compared to virtually every other animal. This and processing speed is supposed to be AI’s main draw.

Processing speed and memory in the context of writing. Give it a bunch of chess boards or chess notation and it has no idea which it needs to remember, nonetheless where/how to move. If you want an AI to play chess, you train it on chess gameplay, not books and Reddit comments. AI isn’t a general use tool.

I would say no, so long as its a case of, “This is looking for in a partner.” rather than, “This is what I expect out of a woman.” or, “This is what I think women should do.” So long as the woman is knowingly and consentingly entering into that arrangement, and you’re not trying to push it onto her, theres nothing wrong with it.

I believe Jack has done a bit for his anti-freebooting campaign, but to my knowledge, it hasn’t been much and this is by-far the most formal.

The only one that comes to mind is Club Penguin’s coffee shop. That one is burned into my memory.

Two companies of tens or hundreds of thousands. And for those two, how much money did they make off the backs of illegal workers? I’m willing to bet significantly more than they were fined.

Edit: at least for Durable Inc, according to Ice, who is is probably going to want to appear tough rather than dow playing it, this is the second time they’ve been fined and their workforce is 92% illegal workers (roughly 53 legal workers, 604 not). If they’re not bankrupted by having, 92% illegal workers, clearly its just a tax, not a punishment or attempt to stop them.