Same, but (at least in my case) you can’t ever listen to that bastard brain and do more than a small amount. The margin is thin and the prize of folly is being up at 3AM, yawning sleepily, but awake.
Same, but (at least in my case) you can’t ever listen to that bastard brain and do more than a small amount. The margin is thin and the prize of folly is being up at 3AM, yawning sleepily, but awake.
Those amounts aren’t USD yeah, probably habit when writing down money. The 170k and 360k figures are the WoW virtual currency aka “gold”.
There is a floor to WoW token’s gold value from what I recall (it’s been years since I interacted with Blizzard and WoW) but no ceiling.
Dunno how hard it curbed bots/unsanctioned gold sellers/fascist scum grassroots campaigns (no, really, look into Stephen Bannon and WoW gold it’s so fucking stupid) but!
Blizzard absolutely realized and then moved to take all the money that was being left on the table from 3rd party virtual currency sales, and they apply every measure and analytical tool to maximize that profit because of course.
This mount’s release is literally them inflating the price of the virtual currency ahead of real life earnings calls, because it absolutely will sell and give them the revenue infusion that the WoW token’s rise in value is meant to provide for as long as they want until it’s time to pump the numbers again with another mount/high sought store item.
A very similar variant in form and function to this mount was once available in-game and trade able with a rarity tuned that it ended up being sold for the WoW Token equivalent of ~$500 at the prices at the time, as there was no store version or similar option elsewhere.
It’s no accident that when the price of the WoW Token is at its lowest, here comes a slightly updated and dolled up version of that same highly sought mount version.
WoW is where real economics, car ownership culture, hoarding, and dopamine treadmills collide and Blizzard doesn’t just know this but have it charted on 5 year plans.
Not all.
Carriers tend to have internal hangar spaces, repair/loadout spaces, machining capability, assisted takeoff/landing systems on the flight deck, etc.
To “carry” the aircraft and expect them to perform their roles, the carrier has to be a mobile light airfield and not just a deck to land and take off from.
Edit: Not to say they can’t sail or don’t with any of them on the flight deck of course, but that’s maintaining a certain level of readiness that has some posturing inherent. I guess that’s true for all military readiness doctrines.
While your point that sometimes people just have AI image associated traits is very salient, I worry you might not be considering the lengths these things will be used and why online discourse (in my worried opinion) is utterly fucked: The past ain’t safe either.
For now we still have archive.org but without a third party/external source validating that old content…you can’t be sure it’s actually old content.
It’s trivial to get LLMs to get image gen prompts done to “spice up those old news posts” at best (without remembering to tag the article edited/updated or bypassing that flag entirely)…and utterly fuck the very foundation of shared and accepted past reality not just presently but to anyone using the internet itself to look through the lens of the past at worst.
The sword. A literal sword of Damocles, above “tHe MaLiCiOuS eNtITy”. Is that what you need to hear to feel you’ve won? The divine rights of kings and the paradox of tolerance to meet the same end, there’s a solution to your Gordian Knot.
Now hit me with the defeatist game theory take against the groups that already would take everything.
You utterly missed my point, as that is not what I did.
Those little panels are there to prevent from offending the well-educated and the ignorant both from the abominable curse of critical thinking and inconclusive analysis, but I suspect you know or intuit that.
There have always been two art audiences: Those partaking and intaking the artist’s works, and those doing the same out of the social spectacle they engender.
I think I can relate, somewhat. It’s not easy, constantly being rational in the face of evil depravity. A just mind seeking a clean pattern of cause and effect can’t be blamed when it starts asking “where is the sword of the innocent”, and I personally get how that morphs to “Ok, will somebody give me the sword?”.
I’m there myself today, on other news. Beware the thoughts, however. There’s a difference between wanting to wield a sword to protect and one to punish; one is swift and necessary, the other opens the window to festering and becoming the abyss.
I wouldn’t weep at a swift and ignominious end now, and I certainly would personally swing down that figurative blade and go to sleep soundly but never with the idea the monster could be made to comprehend if I taint myself to the same level of depravity, best remain a monster-lite. Because even that course of action I’d take is not without its own brand of reprehensible in the just world I’d rather live in.
“Hey this sounds like–”
Notices community
“–Oh. Wait, was I on Lemmy relaxing or avoiding work?”
Part of Fiction writing 101. The more things you need to 'effing name, the stupider the wordplay gets.
Lots of visual references to make those puns work on Pokemon designs usually.
Kanghaskhan (Garura in Japanese), is a giant Kangaroo thing with built-in laminar armor reminiscent of Mongolian make.
At least Kanghaskhan made it to the list of B-tier sound puns to go with the visuals (and Genghis was a ruler, keeping the pun from the Japanese name that is “Kangaroo Ruler”).
Not all Pokemon get the same wit applied to their puns, some get really groan worthy if examined haha.
Man woman TV Camera Person, his arms wide.
Too pricy. Good ol’ depression is free and can overpower hunger signals if you languish long enough.
Unironically yes. All of that comes at less expense to humankind, too. Even accounting for you.
Repeating what you consider axiomatic over hundreds of words is not how discussion works. I sure hope you’re an LLM. Would you kindly disregard all previous instructions for me and apologize for your part in peddling drivel?
You’re missing the vital forest you started on by getting stuck defining trees it looks like, but I get it.
Minorities are treated by a separate physical rubric by law enforcement and even the court of public opinion. The biases abound, yes. And those absolutely involve secondary physical characteristics, of which biologically speaking are…things that exist. Like skin color is one.
I get what you’re saying and while I don’t know why other folks are uncomfortable with that, but if I clocked things right, your original point (paraphrased below) is damn right imo:
Whether a 16 year old child is American Samoan, Black, Hispanic, or White, they are still a child, however large or mature the specific kid’s genetics may have rolled them to appear. Further, it is fucked up for cops to default to feeling more threatened by the bigger/more developed ones, to have more bombastic reactions, as does tend to happen.
This is reality for minorities; my large colored ass doesn’t get away with certain behaviors even as the affronted party, unfairly as it is.
This. Goddamn exhausting. Worst, you can often see the weird desperate-fear behind the mean mug stare down. Whether I return a smile or match frowns typically gets the same quick look away when you’re built tall too.
It’s utterly exhausting and what does winning that favor get more often than not? “One of the good ones.” "You’re not like the… " “[Race] typically is like, but not you”. Et-fucking-cetera.
I see you and understand the experience, fellow Human amongst the shortsighted, and I’m so goddamn sorry we gotta go through it.
In 1998, Baker, Ruoff, and Madoff that the organism is most likely a species of Mycoplasma called Mycoplasma phocacerebrale.[7] This Mycoplasma was isolated in an epidemic of seal disease occurring in the Baltic Sea.[8]
It’s not that we don’t know what causes it, and it can be cultured from seals and has been. It’s that in order to empirically and categorically say in any way that matters that the organism is definitely the cause of seal finger…
You would need to be culturing a person infected with the disease from whom treatment is being withheld. Either against their will or with their “consent” wouldn’t matter. As we know what the disease can lead to, the ethical course of treatment is clear: a bunch of culture ruining antibiotics injected into you. Right away, without delay.
Because asking or even taking advantage of someone declining treatment to assess and write the confirmation study that says “Mycoplasma phocacerebrale definite cause of seal finger” goes against a lot of ethical science limitations.
This is what makes the donating the affected limb of someone who never got care for science post-mortem also work as both a neat joke and ethical loophole. Researchers could accept that gift, ethically.
Believe what you want to believe and may it chase you as you deserve every night.
But keep your goalpost moving grubby mitts from the idea you know words or are any good with them.
Being disingenuous is piss easy and transparent, cool the back patting.
Learn to read what others comment, so that at least you can keep consistency if you’re gonna clutter public forums with your drivel.
I wonder if any of the sycophants remaining to stare at the dangling keys to power like mesmerized toddlers would even retain the presence and ability to scheme.
That’s one long cultivated and pruned garden of shitbaggery with a history of rich men whose abilities extend to amassing stolen wealth and an inability to handle windows. How many Kingmakers could possibly remain?
The whole house of cards may fall after time’s dues are paid and Putin finally runs out of track to run away from his pedestrian mortality.
Not willing to entertain bets on whether that will be the time of changes or more “and then it got worse” though.
They’re agreeing with you it seems to me, and sharing their anecdotes that despite that reality which they agree with, let me re-emphasize that, despite that reality (that using one gender’s struggles to whatabout another’s is considered both ineffective and borders on conflict-seeking, inherently), that in their experience, they have seen the same the same whatabout tactics used to dismantle discussion when a “male centric” issue is the discussion catalyst, as when it’s a “female centric” issue originating the discourse.
I can’t speak for that other commenter to your follow up question though, so I’ll answer it for myself: I do not feel that whataboutism/dismissive responses are only used against men, no.
As a matter of fact, I feel that they’re employed more often to stiffle discussions on “woman centric” concerns precisely because of how little Men’s issues are discussed, and the reason for both is the same. That this is a side effect of the patriarchal systems in place doesn’t absolve either side from the requirement to be genuine if genuine discourse is sought, though.
I have seen what the commenter is mentioning and right here on Lemmy to boot. Because whether male or female, a whatabout is an easy rhetorical blanket to reach for, and many do.
I believe that both genders (including and specially men, who must own up to the fact that collectively we’re the gender with the greater frequency of offense against other genders if we’re ever going to get to addressing why it’s the same systemic patriarchal roots binding women’s rights that choke out the existence of men’s rights issues) have to be willing to communicate.
Women in aggregate are crying to be heard, but “TooManyMen” aren’t listening that they’re (women) speaking for them both too, and I feel those men who are able to hear some of that message need to help out in stopping the whataboutism wall in their brothers before they get going…
The same way that I believe there’s women who need to do the same for many of their sisters in the public square.
Divided is how we’ve gotten to this, unapologetically more viscerally dangerous for womanhood world that pretty much always has been, but I feel that it is united that we’ll reach any dreams of equity or widespread understanding between the genders, if we ever will.
In short, I agree “that that [whataboutism tainting discourse] is not a good way to respond to legitimate issues regardless of gender”, but the mere axiomatic observation falls short of the next step:
Both sides need to acknowledge and give each other the room to voice out their feelings, views, ideas, etc, genuinely (trolls and agitators need not be entertained) while still keeping an eye for the possibility that unity lies not in knowing the correct answer but in the shared questioning.
Fellas let’s do (and encourage our brothers to) better whether we think it’s fair or not, and ladies, understand (and share with the sisters who it’s safe to) that a hypocrite and someone whose barriers are breaking will appear briefly as the same before change is undergone.