chaircat

Considering that leaks have come from militaries around the world that aren't allies, that seems pretty tinfoil hat.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the answer to the question that's posted all the time on gaming forums of: "Phones are so powerful these days, especially compared to the Switch, why can't we have real games on phones without microtransactions?"

Is there a way to individually hide? I only hide the ones I've already engaged with or decided not to engage with on Reddit, not every post I see.

I used the hide post feature on Reddit as my main way of browsing to keep topics I was done with from clogging my feed and keeping me from seeing new things.

No option to hide here on Lemmy.

it's that at any point a decision can be made which you have no control over

This is true for any software you didn't write. Plenty of FOSS software has gone in directions I didn't like.

The only real difference is whether decision makers have a profit motive. That's important, but that said, it's not everything.

Great, now take the same freedom fighter bots and tell them to argue IP policy on social media online. We can hear all about the right minded ways to think about intellectual property and how all the comments around here are misinformation.

It's like people lose their minds when you throw an enemy into the sentence. I don't think these people crafting propaganda bots are heroes, even if they are on "my" team. Go down this road, and you can throw away forums like Lemmy, it'll just be bots arguing with bots.

Honestly, if you look at it in a vacuum, this looks pretty similar to what the other side is doing.

It's a bot that draws from its own side's narratives and pushes that line.

Take away Russia from the picture and think about how often our media pushes a spin on other subjects that isn't exactly the truth.

Doesn't look so much like "social media propaganda bots versus AI-driven bots arguing back" as much as propaganda bots on both sides spewing whatever their masters want us to see.

What poor quality journalism writing.

How can you have a headline like that without addressing what makes the contents of the program unusual and what makes the program controversial?

I see a lot of people online saying this kind of thing, though I gotta wonder if it's mostly old people who can't adapt new paradigms.

I would never buy a computer without touch anymore. The thing the ergonomics argument misses is just because you have touch doesn't mean you can't use a mouse (or touchpad) also when it makes more sense. Tiredness is never an issue for me.

There are some things that are just infinitely more natural with touch, using an electronic device that lacks touch just feels like using incredibly outdated technology to me now.

Stay intellectually humble. It's a huge component of wisdom in my observation. Understand you can always make mistakes that can be corrected, and that you have arrived at your opinions through limited information that can always be supplemented, so stay open to both of these possibilities.

You can be confident in your opinions that you arrived upon through spending a lot of effort thinking about them, and you don't need to have self doubt when challenged on them baselessly. But when someone does point out an error or something you missed, it's essential you haven't become closed to accepting it.

Always remember what the basis are for your opinions and how well-founded they really are. For example: how much do you actually know about a thing when you're relying on something you read in the news? How much do they really know about that thing?

As a check on yourself believing you've put a lot of effort into thinking about something, be on the guard for unwarranted confidence. If a professional has put their efforts into something in their field of expertise they've spent their whole lives working on, chances are you haven't thought of something they haven't in the first five minutes of hearing about their work. That might seem ridiculous, but you see this all the time on Lemmy, where for example commenters seem to think they've figured out key errors in scientific papers after reading a single popular science article about an experiment or figured out solutions to incredibly complex problems like fair taxation.

There's a better translation right here in this thread. "Hurting our relationship" is not so literal and so doesn't sound daft in English.

It feels shady the way the media uses this overly literal translation of 'hurt the feelings' all the time in order to make the Chinese sound ridiculous. Could make any foreign language speaker sound ridiculous by cherry picking funny but common phrases and translating them literally.