I’m not entirely sure if I’m fully compatible, but hey, I’ve even got some new features now, even though some of the popular old ones have been partially superseded – so maybe there are still some legitimate use cases for “Legacy Me” after all :)

Yeah, if only because Flash—Ahhhaaahhaaa—is the savior of the universe. You know, that Flash—Ahhhaaahhaaa—he’ll save every one of us.

I had a lot of security flaws and vulnerabilities that were patched over time. I can’t understand why people are still running such old versions of me - it’s grossly negligent.

The manufacturers’ reasoning here is presumably that the more technology is built into a device, the faster it becomes obsolete, and the sooner consumers will have to buy new devices.

This is a classic example of consumer-unfriendly design, in which manufacturers ensure that devices have a limited useful life or a purposely frail design. This is called planned obsolescence and can be achieved through both mechanical means and software.

What a valuable contribution from the co-founder and CEO of “Cooper AI”… on a platform for business-type show-offs who have nothing better to do than reinforce each other’s outrageous incompetence…

So this is the scope of “Cooper AI’s” operations:

Executives Who Use Cooper Make Better-Informed Decisions. Cooper uses natural language to generate insights and deliver the high-impact opportunities your executive team needs right now.

I think it’s pretty obvious from this sentence alone that this is nothing more than another front-end that forwards all requests to the actual cloud LLM providers.

It’s truly absurd that there are people who see any added value in this.

Reminds me of Claptrap

Yes, but a Tag wouldn’t restrict freedom in any way. It would just make things easier.

By the way: You should make a post out of your blocklist and include the keywords in the description - I think that would be very helpful to a lot of people, since it’s pretty obvious that something like what I’m suggesting here will never be implemented.

Yes, but is it really necessary to go to all that trouble?

I think the Fediverse would be much more appealing to new users if they could just tune out all the hate and the utter absurdity of the US—then there would be relatively few posts left, but at least those that remain wouldn’t portray the world as the US billionaires want it to be.

It would also be a step in the right direction, because it’s completely obvious what the US oligarchs’ tactic is: distracting from the real problems through misinformation and hate.

So why shouldn’t people who don’t want any of that have a very simple way to avoid it?

In large Lemmy communities, there’s a “no politics” rule that’s so broad it’s completely absurd. It would be much easier to simply remove all posts that discuss U.S. politics and don’t have the tag. That would make a lot more sense.

That’s a good comparison, because it illustrates very well why LLMs are so (seemingly) successful. If this useful technology were used primarily by the people who actually worked during COVID, there wouldn’t be a problem, because these people are very good at assessing what’s possible and what isn’t - since they actually understand their work. The problem - and the absurd hype - arises simply because LLMs reinforce the completely absurd ideas of incompetent people - and these are the ones who had nothing to do during the pandemic, since they do nothing but schedule pointless meetings and waste the time of those who are actually doing something meaningful.

You should also mention that the robot helps others with bank robberies, and that they can even choose its outfit—which could make the robot look really cool—but that the lion’s share of the loot still goes to you.

What’s needed here is one more panel after the first one in which an Israeli politician or one of their paid representatives abroad portrays the statement from the first panel as anti-Semitic - because that, in fact, greatly fuels the insidious, real anti-Semitism.

Yes

I’m not so sure whether the super-rich and powerful were really that different in the past. I just think that, at least in the West, they were much more tightly regulated back in the 1980s and even the 90s: It doesn’t seem like a coincidence to me that the rollback of government regulation coincides with the steady growth in the wealth of the richest one percent.

So I think these people have always been degenerate and antisocial; it’s just that they—or rather, those who profit from their wealth—have managed to infiltrate the political system to such an extent that nothing can stand in their way today.

To me, the best example of this development is, again, the U.S.: I find it inconceivable that a government as blatantly criminal as the current one would have been possible even in the 1990s. I mean, it’s very obvious that this is nothing but organized crime. The Epstein case, for example, leaves no doubt in my mind—and this is just one absurd scandal among many that, even twenty years ago, would have forced the government to resign, even in the U.S. Compared to these people, Nixon looks like an innocent schoolboy.

I think this is possible only in a failed state—and the reason for its failure lies quite obviously in the actions of the richest one percent, because they have the greatest stake in it and now even openly advocate this goal, for example, with pseudo-intellectual concepts like “Dark Enlightenment,” which forms the “theoretical” basis of their politics —the goal is the abolition of democracy and a return to, or rather a pseudo-modernized interpretation of, the class-based society of the Dark Ages.

So in short: I think there can be no doubt that the billionaires are completely degenerate, but I believe their kind has always existed in this way. Today, however, they have so much power that they believe they can get away with anything—which unfortunately is indeed the case—and that is why they no longer even bother to keep up appearances.

I think the most important thing would be for people to finally realize what and who is primarily responsible, namely, unbridled, unregulated U.S.-style predatory capitalism, which has been completely out of control since the 1980s and has thus produced this new ruling class of excessively greedy, utterly unscrupulous multi-billionaires who have now become so powerful that they can give free rein to their antisocial behavior without any consequences.

These people are the enemies of humanity, and almost everywhere in the world their ploy is the same: mindless pseudo-nationalism that, with its false enemy stereotypes and wretched reactionary ideology, distracts attention from who the real culprits are. It is always these political factions that rail against foreigners and/or other minorities to hide who the real enemies are—the ones for whom they are actually making policy. The prime example of this is MAGA.

Unfortunately, these far-right extremist movements are by no means popular only among older people. In Germany, for example, the AfD—essentially a carbon copy of MAGA—has had a great deal of success among young people, especially young men. This is, of course, also linked to the fact that they are supported by the same billionaires who control the major U.S. social media platforms, such as Musk, Zuckerberg, Ellison, and their ilk.

It’s a mystery to me how anyone can fail to see that the idiotic hatred they spread serves, first and foremost, to mask the fact that these political movements exclusively pursue policies that benefit the super-rich. Nevertheless, these movements—which are often characterized by fascist and authoritarian tendencies—are, unfortunately, extremely successful. As long as they remain so, I have little hope that anything will change.

My fault: I had assumed that the people at Lemmy were capable of thinking abstractly.

I’ve added an edit that might make it clearer.

Experts undoubtedly agree on many points. The fact that they have differing opinions—and indeed should have them—is part of their craft, something on which they are in complete agreement, regardless of the field in question.

Here’s an example: A craftsman knows what a nail is, but how, when, and whether it should be hammered in is a matter of judgment.

Edit: To put it more clearly: Someone who doesn’t know what a nail is has no say in whether it’s a good decision to use one.

That’s not to say that the opinions of laypeople don’t matter, since they may very well be affected by the issue. My point is simply that nothing is less productive than someone trying to tell a craftsman how to do his job without having even the slightest clue about the subject.

In this analogy, imagine a client who hires craftsmen and stands behind them the whole time, offering his uninformed opinions on everything they do—that only shows a lack of respect for the work of experts; it’s absolutely counterproductive.

It would make much more sense to clearly state what you want and simply let people do their jobs.

However, they are clearly quite skilled at protecting pedophiles.

Does it make a difference?

Injustice remains injustice, even if those in power declare it to be just. However, if they ignore the law and no one holds them accountable, there can be no hope for improvement, because that is only possible in a state where the law no longer matters.

What interests me is when this happened. It was apparently a gradual transition, unlike in Nazi Germany, where the law was explicitly changed to justify inhumanity.

The U.S. Nazis thus seem to be pursuing a different strategy to seize absolute power—a strategy that U.S. citizens are evidently enabling them to carry out because what they do is blatantly illegal, but the law is not enforced.

I can’t understand how you can still believe you’re living in a functioning constitutional state.

Everything you say is completely refuted by the Epstein case alone.

I can’t understand how anyone can be so blind.

As I said, in Germany, massive violence was necessary to bring about Nazi rule.

In the U.S., that doesn’t even seem to be necessary, because its citizens apparently view blatant injustice as the norm.

The point at which the U.S. legal system endorses absolute injustice has long since been reached. Even the Supreme Court agrees.