• 0 Posts
  • 80 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 1st, 2023

help-circle
  • If however a country would be prepared to cut through the red tape and have a standard design developed for say 10 plants at the same time, the price and construction time would be decreased greatly.

    That’s a pretty big ask for a democratic government where half of the politicians are actively sabotaging climate initiatives…

    The only countries where this is really feasible are places where federal powers can supersede the authority of local governments. A nuclear based power grid in America would require a complete reorganization of state and federal authority.

    The only way anyone thinks nuclear energy is a viable option in the states is if they completely ignore the political realities of American government.

    For example, is it physically possible for us to build a proper deep storage facility for nuclear waste? Yes, of course. Have we attempted to build said deep storage facility? Yes, since 1987. Are we any closer to finishing the site after +30 years…no.


  • Wikileaks was never really a beacon of free speech its always been more of a platform where people can leak information about goverments and other powerful individuals or organizations doing bunch of shady or downright evil stuff behind our back. These often offer rare glimpse behind the scenes allowing us to be little less blind when voting during whather elections comes next.

    When WikiLeaks first came about it’s original goal was aimed at leaking information about authoritarian governments, primarily China and some countries in the Middle East. It was pretty big news at the time because assange had wrangled together a team of some pretty high profile Journalist and privacy tech people.

    However, most of those people were never really involved in the organization, and were mainly utilized as a marketing scheme. The rest slowly left the organization as works in their fields within WikiLeaks stagnated, or left over security and leadership concerns.

    Imo Assange has always been a duplicitous attention seeker. However, if that were illegal, pretty much everyone involved in media would be thrown in a cell. I think his biggest failures that should tarnish his public image is his handling of the leaks. Him rushing to release information against the advise of his security experts, information that hadn’t been properly vetted to protect the whistle blowers from prosecution.

    Multiple people have had their lives ruined because he didn’t take the time and effort to protect his sources. And not because they didn’t have the ability to, or lacked the proper protocols, but because Julian didn’t care so long as his name got air time.


  • I think kids brains just latch on to things without regard to other people’s feelings or social mores. Sometimes it’s cruel, sometimes it’s just ignorant, but a lot of the times it’s just nonsensical.

    In middle and high school people called me Flyin Hawaiian, I’m not Polynesian, nor have I ever lived on an island. I’m just very large for a Korean dude and played football.



  • Lol, If was in it for the money I wouldn’t be working at a children’s hospital run by one of the poorest states in America.

    My concern isn’t even particularly with the the creator, she’s an artist. My problem is when people try to pass it off as a medical device that can help disabled people.

    An even larger problem is when hobbyist start making medical devices for children. There are inherent problems they do not understand, because they lack education in the field. Children are so adaptive that if you don’t provide them with a device that actually provides sufficient utility they will adapt to not wearing a prosthetic at all, severely limiting their future mobility/functionality.



  • Another useless prosthetic designed by 3d printing enthusiasts…

    I work in orthotics and prosthetics, and the majority of the articles written about the “next gen” prosthetics are just marketing materials trying to wrangle up VC funding.

    Nothing about this makes sense. First of all, no one intuitively knows how to usefully operate a “third thumb”, so the learning curve on this is going to impede its adoption. We already have a hard time getting upper limb patients to use their prosthetics, and that’s when we’re purposely mimicking something they already know.

    Secondly, the utility of thumbs in general is that they are opposable. With the placement of their “thumb” the only digit you can utilize with it is your other thumb… Which means adding a thumb negates the advantage of thumbs in the first place.

    Finally, and most the important aspect to any prosthetics is utility. If this is meant to help people missing their other arm…how do they get the prosthetic on in the first place? And when you do manage to get someone to help you put this on, we’re supposed to use our big toe as the action controller? Okay, so that means you can utilize this thing while walking?

    Why on gods green earth did they not use myoelectrics? We’ve had them since the 70’s, why is this “cutting edge” prosthetic going backwards in technology?

    Oh wait, I can tell you… Because it was designed by a 3d printing lab with no experience in actual prosthetics. 3d printers are successfully being used in prosthetics, but only when the person utilizing them has a background in prosthetics or biomedical engineering. Ends up it’s a lot easier to have a prosthetist learn about 3d printing than it is to teach a 3d printing enthusiast about a field of study that requires education in physiology, anatomy, material science, and fabrication…



  • Just to nit-pick, the Japanese never really figured out how to produce composite bows, the Yumi was just laminated bamboo. It was one of the reasons they couldn’t successfully invade Korea until they were given western tech.

    It’s kinda ironic nowadays, but prior to the meiji restoration Japan was considered a cultural and technological backwater.







  • understand that the theory supposedly applies to other areas as well, but as you so helpfully pointed out: the theory doesn’t seem to hold up.

    My original claim was that cathartic theory in and of itself is not founded on evidence based research.

    but at the same time, the theory is totally correct! (when it’s convenient to you, that is)

    When did I claim it was ever correct?

    I think you are misconstruing my original claim with the claims made by the cathartic theory itself.

    I don’t claim that cathartic theory is beneficial in any way, you are the one claiming that Cathartic theory is correct for sexual aggression, but not for violence.

    Do you have a source that claims cathartic theory is beneficial for satiation deviant sexual impulses?

    then the claim of a link between sexuality and aggression is also without support, until you provide a source for that claim.

    You are wanting me to provide an evidence based claim between the two when I’ve already said the overarching theory is not based on evidence?

    The primary principle to establish is the theory of cathartic relief, not wether it works for one emotion or the other. You have not provided any evidence to support that claim, I have provided evidence that disputes it.


  • but is not relevant to the topic at hand.

    The belief that indulging in AI created child porn relieves the sexual deviant behaviour of being attracted to actual minors utilizes the cathartic theory. The cathartic theory is typically understood to relate to an array of emotions, not just anger. "Further, the catharsis hypothesis maintains that aggressive or sexual urges are relieved by “releasing” aggressive or sexual energy, usually through action or fantasy. "

    follows the same patterns as aggression. that’s a pretty big claim! i’d like to see a source that supports that claim.

    That’s not a claim I make, it’s a claim that cathartic theory states. As I said the cathartic hypothesis is a byproduct of Freudian psychology, which has largely been debunked.

    Your issue is with the theory in and of itself, which my claim is already stating to be problematic.

    but is also entirely off-topic…

    No, you are just conflating colloquial understanding of catharsis with the psychological theory.



  • Catharsis theory predicts that venting anger should get rid of it and should therefore reduce subsequent aggression. The present findings, as well as previous findings, directly contradict catharsis theory (e.g., Bushman et al., 1999; Geen & Quanty, 1977). For reduc- ing anger and aggression, the worst possible advice to give people is to tell them to imagine their provocateur’s face on a pillow or punching bag as they wallop it, yet this is precisely what many pop psychologists advise people to do. If followed, such advice will only make people angrier and more aggressive.

    Source

    But there’s a lot more studies who have essentially said the same thing. The cathartic hypothesis is mainly a byproduct of the Freudian era of psychology, where hypothesis mainly just sounded good to someone on too much cocaine.

    Do you have a source of studies showing the opposite?


  • Currently even if they used voice clips to train a model on her voice it wouldn’t be illegal.

    I think that’s currently the point of contention…

    That isn’t currently the case, since they say they used an other actress that sounds like her anyways.

    That’s what they’re claiming, but it’s not like open AI doesn’t have a pretty well documented history of lying.

    No! Just like she doesn’t deserve to own the four chord progressions that make up her songs.

    There’s a difference between common chord progressions and plagiarizing someone’s voice and performance. You are the only person conflating the two.

    This is why none of this is copyrightable. There are two many people that have similar voices

    I think their intent is pretty clear. They didn’t want a similar voice, they wanted her voice. After failing at getting her consent, they proceeded anyways.

    and too many songs that use similar chord progressions.

    There’s actual precedent on how similar songs can be to each other without giving credit. Simple chord progressions aren’t copyrightable, but how those chord progressions are performed are.

    Your fantasy where this empowers small time artists is just that, a fantasy.

    Lol, if they are able to plagiarize art from millionaires, what’s the chance there’s going to be any kind of protections for small artist?

    If we push and they come out with new laws that make these things copyrightable, you just end up with corporations owning all of it.

    We don’t have to come out with laws banning chord progressions, that’s just a strawman argument you erected yourself. We just need to apply the laws we currently have to AI companies. If Sony had tried to get her to dress like black widow and do a commercial and she refused. And if they then proceeded to hire an actress who looked like her, dressed the actress in a black skin tight suit, and gave her a red wig… We’d be dealing with a hefty lawsuit, even if they claimed it wasn’t supposed to be SJ.