CaptainEffort

CaptainEffort , 3 days ago

Yup, walking everywhere when I briefly lived in Europe was huge for me, both for my physical and mental health.

CaptainEffort , 8 days ago

Good for her, I went to my younger brother’s graduation and, while happy with the amount of protesting, was disappointed in the student speaker’s speech. It was purposefully vague, not outright saying anything.

CaptainEffort , 11 days ago

Shelley Kelly?

CaptainEffort , 11 days ago

Sort of yeah

CaptainEffort , 14 days ago

“Can think for herself” makes me thing they’re just trolling

CaptainEffort , 26 days ago

How Can You Be Sure?

CaptainEffort , 28 days ago

The switch is already 7 years old. In a couple of years it’ll be in the same spot…

CaptainEffort , 28 days ago

Think about the fact that an 11 year old who got a Switch at launch is an literal adult now. It’s bizarre for me to think about.

And yeah lol I totally get that, the PS1 only came out like 5 years before I was born but it felt like ancient technology to me.

CaptainEffort , 1 month ago

Nah man, rain is beautiful. It sounds amazing, makes everything look amazing, and makes the world look so much more vibrant afterwards.

If it rained two or three times a week until the end of time I’d be the happiest man alive.

CaptainEffort , 1 month ago

When I was in high school my roommate insisted on opening the windows and putting a box fan in them, cranking it to full blast. We’d go to sleep fully dressed lol.

I hated it at first, but honestly, I kind of grew to love it.

CaptainEffort , 1 month ago

I know I’m weird but that sounds like heaven to me.

CaptainEffort , 1 month ago

Notepad is horrible now, how tf do you mess that up??

CaptainEffort , 1 month ago (edited 1 month ago)

In Windows 11 it saves every text file you open as a new tab, so every time you open a text file you’ll have tabs upon tabs of every previous text file you’ve ever opened.

Here’s a Reddit post with some people talking about how to disable it, how frustrating it is, and even how it’s causing problems by straight up opening the wrong file if it’s named the same as a text file you’ve opened in the past.

CaptainEffort , 1 month ago

Every night

CaptainEffort , 1 month ago

People do that now, even without the excuses of ai deepfakes. They simply ignore the stuff that doesn’t fit their worldview, only focusing on what does.

Ai stuff may make that easier, but it certainly won’t be some new problem.

CaptainEffort , 1 month ago

You don’t think it’s easy for someone to simply imagine another naked? That’s no different than this - it’s all a fantasy. None of it’s real.

CaptainEffort , 1 month ago

Did you miss what this post is about? In this scenario it’s literally not your body.

CaptainEffort , 1 month ago

How? In my mind, for this scenario, I can picture your face literally perfectly. It is, for all intents and purposes, your real face. In this case what I imagine in my head is identical to what some ai model would churn out.

CaptainEffort , 1 month ago

Do you have nudes out there? Because if not then yes, that would stop people. The ai can’t magically reveal what’s actually under your clothes.

CaptainEffort , 1 month ago

Hold up, that’s a separate issue. Revenge porn is flat out illegal, so using nudes of people, real or not, as blackmail, isn’t up for debate here. Whether or not it’s obvious, and I’m sorry if it’s not, I’m 100% with you that that’s completely disgusting and shouldn’t be tolerated.

Back to the first part though, is the problem literally just that it exists outside of the persons head? If they don’t share it with anyone, what’s really the difference from them imagining it? In both scenarios they’re effectively getting the same result, and nobody else is affected.

CaptainEffort , 1 month ago

I get that it’s creepy but that’s a dark path you want to walk down. Think about how that would have to be enforced.

CaptainEffort , 1 month ago

If you have no problem with people jerking off to your pictures, fine, but others do

Of course, but people have been doing this since the dawn of time. So unless the plan is to incorporate the Thought Police, there’s no way to actually stop it from happening.

CaptainEffort , 1 month ago

That’s a great example though, because truthfully digital cp is incredibly difficult to enforce, and some of the laws that have been proposed to make it easier have been incredibly controversial due to how violating they are to people’s privacy.

CaptainEffort , 1 month ago

That’s their pitch, it’s their way of advertising to people. The ai isn’t literally psychic. All the ai is doing is guessing by using a database of thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of naked bodies, and trying to fill in the blanks based on what it thinks yours probably looks like.

The AI isn’t magic, it doesn’t have the ability to somehow reveal what you look like without knowing. It’s the equivalent of really good photoshop effectively.

CaptainEffort , 1 month ago

Literally yes. As this becomes a more prevalent, widespread issue, eventually we’re going to reach a point where seeing a nude of someone is effectively meaningless, as it’s just as likely that it’s fake as it is real.

This is just a transitional phase. It’s going to be rough for sure, especially with how puritan and judgmental our culture is, but my point stands.

CaptainEffort , 1 month ago

I agree completely with the last part of your comment at least, that other comment unironically saying that it’s the women’s fault for dressing the way they do is bizarre and archaic.

CaptainEffort , 1 month ago (edited 1 month ago)

Look at their next comment, that’s literally what they think is happening.

And it should resolve it. The idea of someone picturing us in their head, photoshopping us, or drawing us, can be incredibly creepy, yeah, but nobody has ever tried to make it illegal.

Also is this an argument of ethics or legality? They’re not inherently the same. Like, I think it’s unethical to insult random people in the street, but it sure as hell shouldn’t be illegal.

As for your last part, it’s funny because I’ve literally never done this. Ironically enough, I find it too creepy to even try, but in the same way that photoshopping or drawing someone nude would be. Incredibly creepy, but not illegal.

CaptainEffort , 1 month ago

Idk how many people are viewing this as normal, I think most of us recognize all of this as being incredibly weird and creepy.

CaptainEffort , 1 month ago (edited 1 month ago)

I’m not trying to be disingenuous, it genuinely sounded like you didn’t realize, that’s my bad.

Imo as these become widespread, we’ll inevitably reach a point where nudes simply don’t matter. If anyone can create a nude of someone else with next to no effort in seconds, then a nude getting “leaked” would have next to no impact or relevance.

Right now we live in a pretty puritan society, so the transitional phase is going to suck and people are going to be hurt. Obviously that’s awful, and none of this should take away from that fact, I feel horrible for the people negatively impacted by this. And while that’s all true, it’s also true that as we continue going down this road we’ll reach a point where it simply won’t matter anymore.

CaptainEffort , 1 month ago

It sounded like they thought the AI would literally reveal their body tho, which simply isn’t true. They clarified what they meant in a newer comment tho, so that’s my fault for misunderstanding.

Ultimately I would agree that sharing these images shouldn’t be legal, just as afaik it’s not legal to share real nudes without the person’s explicit consent. I imagine it would fall into the same vein as revenge porn.

But imo it shouldn’t be illegal to make them. It’s really no different than what people have been doing for thousands of years, whether that’s simply imaging the person, drawing them, or more recently, photoshopping them.

Is it creepy as fuck? Absolutely, but not everything I find gross should be outlawed. Take a second to think about how we would go about outlawing the use of photoshopped nudes, for example, and you’ll see the dark violating path we would need to go down to make that enforceable.

Regardless, it’s funny but I actually don’t do any of this shit, I ironically find it too weird, I don’t think I’d be able to look at myself in the mirror afterwards lol. But I still defend the fact that it shouldn’t be illegal. I defend the legality of lots of stuff that I don’t personally do.

Edit: Sorry my last paragraph is effectively the same as my prior explanation. I didn’t realize you were the one I’d already explained this to, so I was just reiterating. But again no, I literally don’t use any of this shit. The most I’ve ever done is use those prompt websites to make some bizarre psychedelic art, or see what typing in my username would result in.

CaptainEffort , 1 month ago

I literally did own up to it, I said it was my fault for misunderstanding.

Regardless, nobody is viewing assault as free speech. Look up the definition of a strawman.

I hope if you choose to respond that you’ll take some time to calm down. I don’t mean to be invalidating, so I’m sorry if it comes across that way, but this comment was pretty rough.

Even so though, I don’t mean to say that your anger is unwarranted, I mean hell if I thought someone was advocating for assault to be a protected speech, and then shrugging off blame when proven wrong about something, I’d be pissed off too. Especially with a topic as sensitive as this. But I hope you can recognize that I’m not at all doing that, or at the very least that it’s not my intention. Like I said, I owned up to my mistake right away once I realized that I’d misunderstood.

CaptainEffort , 1 month ago

Yeah damn, that’s true.

An obvious answer would be to talk to younger people about it, to explain how gross and violating it is. Even if it doesn’t become illegal, there are plenty of legal things that people avoid and recognize are bad because they were taught correctly.

Unfortunately, due to how puritan our society is, I can’t imagine many parents would be willing to talk to their kids about stuff like this.

CaptainEffort , 1 month ago

I mean literally yes, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t still horrible

CaptainEffort , 1 month ago

That’s what I was hoping too, and I’m sure for some it does, but I also saw an article the other day about people using these to blackmail children into giving real nudes, so fuck me I guess.

I still hope that for the majority of pedos this is solely something used to deter their urges. I’d like at least that much I mean ffs.

CaptainEffort , 1 month ago

No fucking kidding lmao

CaptainEffort , 1 month ago

Ooh, it must've been about seven, eight years ago. Me and the little lady was out on this boat, you see, all alone at night, when all of a sudden this huge creature, this giant crustacean from the paleolithic era, comes out of the water.

It stood above us looking down with these big red eyes, and I yelled. I said, "What do you want from us, monster?!" And the monster bent down and said, "...Uh I need about tree-fitty."

CaptainEffort , 2 months ago

I remember having this feature on my jailbroken iPhone in like 2009. Wild that it took this long.

CaptainEffort , 2 months ago

Sometimes I feel myself losing the epiphanies as I’m coming down lol, like I’m losing the ability to see or comprehend them

CaptainEffort , 2 months ago

Fuck spez

CaptainEffort , 2 months ago

iPhone users aren’t a species, they’re human beings that don’t have to be iPhone users. Thanks to competition they are free to choose from a wide variety of other competitors.

This is the equivalent of saying that Walmart has a monopoly because Walmart customers are being forced to purchase items from within Walmart. That because Target isn’t allowed to set up a stall in Walmart, it’s a monopoly.

CaptainEffort , 2 months ago

green bubble and how their parents won’t get them an iPhone.

Tbh I agree with a lot of what you’re saying, but this take is embarrassing and doesn’t even make sense in the modern day. You realize plenty of Androids are the same price, if not more expensive, than iPhones right? What year do you think it is?

CaptainEffort , 2 months ago

Usually

CaptainEffort , 2 months ago

Which is, imo, pretty dumb. If it gives these people an outlet that literally hurts no one, I say they should be allowed to use it. Without it they’ll just go to more extreme lengths to get what they need, and as such may go to places where actual real life children are being abused or worse.

So while it’s still disgusting and I’d rather not think about it, if nobody’s being hurt then it’s none of my business. Let them get out their urges in a safe way that doesn’t affect anybody else.

CaptainEffort , 2 months ago

Like how video games supposedly normalize violence? Are you going to go shoot a bunch of people because GTA exists?

Ffs guys what year is this? Thought we were past this silly mindset.

CaptainEffort , 2 months ago

You think abusing a child is easier than, say, punching someone in the face as you would do in video games?

Dude if you genuinely think that I’d recommend reaching out to someone…

In all seriousness tho, way to take the most extreme video game example possible to dismiss my point. Video game violence can have an extremely low “situational barrier”, but that doesn’t mean that video games will make you do those things.

CaptainEffort , 2 months ago

Honestly tho… it seems like they have a point. It isn’t just blind ranting, there’s a lot of truth here.

And I say that as someone that doesn’t even particularly like Apple, I use Windows and prefer Android.

CaptainEffort , 2 months ago (edited 2 months ago)

Apple’s ecosystem isn’t unique, take Cosco or Sam’s Club for example. If you want access to their “user base” then you’ll need to follow their rules and accept that they’ll be taking a bigger cut than other markets. You can choose to sell elsewhere, but that’s the price for access to their customers.

And as for your Ford example, that’s hardly a crazy concept. Plenty of manufacturers have to pay a premium to manufacture parts for certain companies.

CaptainEffort , 2 months ago

Yeah, but I imagine Costco or Sam's Club don't manufacture products that then can't be used together with products made somewhere else, do they?

This is an entirely different argument about whether companies should be allowed to make their products proprietary and only work with stuff sold by them, which btw is also common outside of Apple.

This discussion is about whether or not Apple has the right to enforce certain rules and demand a bigger cut from those who want to use their market place, and as we’ve gone over plenty of other markets do this as well. Apple isn’t unique here.

I'm saying Apple is out of line because they don't let other people develop software compatible with their products and sell it without taking a cut.

Is Sony out of line because they won’t let you put your games on their marketplace and sell it without taking a cut? Nintendo? Microsoft?

Hell, even ignoring Costco and Sam’s Club, nearly any market you decide to sell your product in will be taking a cut, some more than others. This isn’t a new concept - if you want access to a company’s “user base” then you’re going to have to give the company a cut.

It's as if I was manufacturing trailers, and had to pay Ford a 30% cut just because it can be hitched to a Ford.

Not quite, as the ability to hitch your trailer to a car, luckily, isn’t proprietary and works the same across the board. If instead you wanted your trailers to make use of a proprietary feature of Ford’s then yes, you’d have to pay a premium. Whether that’s parody with their OS throughout the trailer, or some other feature that’s specifically theirs, you don’t get access to that for nothing.

A better analogy though, as we’re talking about markets, is if you wanted to sell your trailers on Ford’s car lots. Yes, you alone manufactured these trailers, but if you want to sell them on Ford’s lots, to their clients, then you’re going to have to pay a premium.

By the way, this is how you know Apple is monopolistic; in a competitive market standards…

But you’re not talking about Apple here, you’re talking about the App Store. Apple itself isn’t a monopoly, as it quite literally has direct competitors. While the App Store is a “monopoly” in the same way that the PlayStation Store is a monopoly.