Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

For the elderly folk who write and enforce the laws that caused this to come to pass, sufficiently advanced technology just means more complex than notepad

Touché

You can die of cirrhosis from drinking too much for too long, but it’s still culturally held as a stress reliever. You can die from diabetes if you eat too much sugar for too long, but it’s still sold to children as edible happiness. Hell, you can die slowly and painfully from taking too much Tylenol, but it’s still the world’s most popular painkiller by far.

Too much of anything kills eventually. That doesn’t bare any significance to whether or not it’s good for stress in some amount.

I meant it in jest only. Sorry about your phone, bro

I’m all for replacing the s at the beginning of words with z so you read it in an exaggerated German accent, but you gotta be consistent

Really hoping to zee a zurge in ze demand for “Anti-AI” zoftware/zervices/community

Fixed that for you there, Goebbels

Every time something gets objectively worse there are always people who say “Jokes on them I don’t use that!” and miss the point.

Like yeah, we get it. It’s only a matter of time until this kind of bullshit reaches something you do use. You should still be bothered by this.

Yes. Our country is run by geriatrics who, among other things related to modern society, legislate on technology they don’t understand. We need younger members with more flexible minds who have at least spent some part of their younger lives dealing with problems we have a modern variation of today.

But especially SCOTUS members. Any kind of term limit on them would be better than what we have.

The beauty of being here on lemmy is that I genuinely can’t tell whether you said this because you’re far right or because you’re far left

Stupid opinion either way. That Ai is going to catch its share of r/conservative idiots and be a nice blend of ignorance

This is incredibly disingenuous. The US might not be a true democracy, but it’s not an authoritarian regime. Xi and putin disappear people who have an opinion on whether they should be forever-rulers.

The fact that independent parties exist and hold seats at all three levels of government mean you are fundamentally wrong in saying there are only two choices.

The US is a flawed democracy. That’s still better than an authoritarian regime.

most of the time for no reason at all

Not for no reason. It’s a form of control. If you genuinely believe that the opposing party is going to bring the country to ruin, you’re a lot less likely to consider their position in politics.

Look at the affordable care act. Conservatives hated/hate it because “obamacare” was portrayed as giving free health care to the lazy poor that you have to pay for as a hard working conservative. When asked if we should repeal Obamacare, conservatives poll something crazy like 95% yes, simply because it’s a bad word they learned.

Many of those conservatives have health care through the ACA and get mad when Republicans take it away because they need it. Those same conservatives mostly aren’t even aware that what they have is literally obamacare.

It’s control all the way down.

Politics is fundamentally different for conservatives. They have to have someone to hate. It’s drilled into them by their media outlets.

The tactic is a form of fear based control that conservative media has been working on since Nixon, and made into effect with the birth of Fox News in 1996.

Seriously. Nixon’s think tank conceived the conservative media outlet as a catch-all, exclusive source of news that as a primary function would steer conservatives to not trust other news sources.

They did this because they did not want another Watergate, where conservatives turned against Nixon because of hard evidence laid out by popular unbiased news, which at the time conservatives still were informed by.

The Frankenstein’s monster of a party that that tactic has turned conservatives into requires manufactured rage to fuel the fire. If the outrage ever simmers, you begin to see smarter conservatives recognizing what their party has become and it begins to fall apart.

So there’s your answer. It’s because the hate is necessary to continue the control. If you don’t believe me, turn on Fox news. There’s always the manufactured rage-of-the-day filling the air time.

If only they actually would die on that hill. They won’t, because they’ve conditioned their base to support them no matter what. Instead, they’ll rot the hill and move on to the next once the one they’re on can’t be salvaged.

It’s not just a data mining cash grab. It’s a bigger cash grab than that. If they had required the account link from the beginning they would not have sold the game in countries where you can’t get a PlayStation account.

They clearly waited until the hype from the game settled in before they made this requirement so that they could make all of the money from the countries they don’t service.

That way they could squeeze a little extra out of the player base by mining their data long enough later that players can’t get a refund. Doesn’t matter to them that they’re forcing players in half the geological world to quit.

Truly despicable. They should be forced to issue refunds to players they are effectively kicking from the game, but something tells me nothing is going to happen.

The paradox of tolerance applied to this situation suggests that in order to keep a community where choice is preserved, we need to be intolerant of bad actors with the ultimate goal of killing that choice.

Meta absolutely is a bad actor looking to Embrace, Extend, Extinguish the fediverse.

They’re pivoting the overwhelming userbase of Facebook/Instagram into a sort of federated Twitter alternative that their users as a whole don’t understand but do generate content for, in an attempt to steer the federation architecture into something they can control and make money off of. It’s not subtle.

Whether it will work or is even possible for meta to do remains to be seen.

But, yes. To answer your question, we need to “deny the choice” of federating with what amounts to a wolf in sheep’s clothing to preserve what we have, because that wolf is looking to destroy it.

This post demonstrates that all of the major instances on lemmy but one understand this concept. If lemmy.world doesn’t want to acknowledge what meta is doing, then they’re also a bad actor in enabling meta to do it.

For people who consider this a sign of social status

Ok well,

1. Anyone who considers apple products a status symbol already has bought in and won’t be swayed one way or the other by windows becoming worse.

2. Anyone who actually understands technology knows that regardless of how many different apps or environments apple OS’s provide, you are always operating in a closed system with the tools they allow. Whereas an operating system like android, or Linux, or (at least for now) windows, your options for the capability of a tool are limited only by what exists or what you have the capability to write.

In short, apple isn’t an OS that technologically literate people flock to as an exclusive option.

In addition to the other great points in this thread, Apple has a cost barrier that other operating systems don’t.

In an economic climate where everything is getting more expensive, a consumer isn’t going to fork out $800+ on a MacBook or an iPhone without first actively wanting to be part of the ecosystem, especially if the hardware they have gets the job done.

The reason Apple isn’t growing as fast as it’s competitors right now is exactly that. Apple is expensive to get into. No amount of enshitification on other OS’s is going to change that.

They don’t go after lemmy. They go after the users. There are several ways, the easiest of which is to make using a federated network an implicit crime.

Like how downloading or talking too loudly about tor or tails puts you on a watch list.

They don’t even have to follow up on that more than a couple times for the chilling effect to drive people away from using it. Without a large enough user base, we’re spread too thin to affect change.

If the current system ever identifies federation as a threat, it’ll happen.

That baby’s making dough

I meant that to say, it’s a genre that deserves to be distinguished from just one of the many games that define it.

As a rephrase of that comment, defining the 5 games I listed after one game that basically just came before them would be dishonest because of how different those games all are from Slay the Spire and each other. That’s why the genre is named after what they all have in common, which is a mashup of two existing genres.

What you’re proposing would be like renaming the first person shooter genre to “halo-like” or “call of duty-like” just because those games predate a lot of others and people like them. It’s unnecessary and loses the descriptive quality of the name it has.

The genre can be called “rogue like deck builder” all you want, we all know what it really is: “Spirelike”

Well, you did. And you also directly acknowledged that the genre already has a name in the same sentence.

It seems to be your opinion that it needs another one, even though the name it has is already so well established that it has its own steam tag.

I mean, you’re entitled to have that opinion, and I also understand the logic behind it. But this conversation wasn’t started with “us” saying it needs another name.