Seems like a good policy to give non US AI companies a boost whilst also causing a US recession, given a large chunk of the US economy is currently being propped up by the AI bubble.
Wasn't one of the results of the failed 90s encryption export controls, that as a result, other strong encryption schemes were created elsewhere and kneecapped the advantage that the US previously held in that area
Hmm, I guess denuvo's not forever
......... I'll get my coat
Honestly the subhead could have been the headline if prefixed with "Britain:"
A case study in self-sabotage
My god, they incarnated the big brain wojack
The internet has broken me
I spent a good 30s trying to figure out how this was loss
Bingo, he's pretty open about being an arsenal fan
infantilizing, condescending, and missing my entire point
Firstly, apologies about the first two, honestly not my intention. And perhaps you're right about the last
The tag is there so that there isn't confusion about what you're saying
Yes I understand that, however especially with humour like sarcasm, it somewhat hinges on the ambiguity. If you remove the ambiguity, it kinda just becomes a non sequitur or contrarian. To add the tag removes something fundamental about it
More subjective on this one, but frankly for jokes that don't rely on that ambiguity, they shouldn't need signposting as jokes if they're any good anyway. Though I'm actually less bothered about them in that circumstance, they're more like canned laughter, which still has a negative impact IMO but doesn't take away something fundamental from a lot of humour.
People telling others to use the tag usually comes from them being massively misunderstood and then saying "I was being sarcastic".
Anecdotal of course, but in my experience it's more often down to it being unfunny or just shitty. I'd say I've seen "I was being sarcastic" much more often as a cop out than any kind of genuine misunderstanding. i.e. they should probably have just not made the joke/quip
do you deliver all of your sarcasm straight?
Tbf, yeah as best I can when trying to be earnestly (lol) sarcastic. If I'm trying to be ironically sarcastic then I'd probably ham up the overly sarcastic stereotypical delivery.
Maybe this is also something of a cultural clash too as someone else mentioned. Dry sarcasm based humour has been something of a key pillar in the gamut of humour throughout my life so far. It was a big faux pas growing up to laugh at your own jokes, that's probably gonna impact my views on this if we're gonna do an armchair psychoanalysis
that's how 4chan brought the nazis back.
A funny jump and technically a slippery slope fallacy, but also kinda a fair point. I didn't mean it in a black and white sense, but I guess that kinda is the problem. I don't think we can really include bad actors in a discussion about something they would simply just mimic to continue doing what they already do.
How does clarifying where you stand detriment anyone?
Hopefully elaborated above enough to answer that, but basically after thought there's more nuance than that question asks for. Some humour kinda hinges on ambiguity that is destroyed by flagging it, other cases it kinda dents it IMO but I guess I have much less of a fundamental issue with it in those cases
Gonna preface this with: I completely understand your difficulty, I have several autistic people in my life and I know that it's important to make reasonable accommodations to help make life easier. However conversely, a reasonable accommodation must not invalidate the initial reason for the accommodation in the first place. If the point is humour, it's a hard sell to force someone to, from their point of view, remove the humour from the humour. You wouldn't knock down a monument to install a lift to get to the top, sure the people with mobility issues can get to the top now, but the monument is no longer there to see.
Given that, an audience freely laughing at a joke is very different from a comedian demanding you laugh immediately after each joke, which would be a more direct comparison. The latter drains all humour from the situation, the former arguably elevates it.
Personally, if the point of a comment is to post something that I think is amusing, there's no point in doing it if I have to compromise what constitutes the humour to me, otherwise I'd just be posting something unfunny, defeating the object of it entirely.
That and it's the internet, we all have a better time if we go with the working assumption that the vast, vast majority of comments are entirely unserious.
Oh.
Well there goes that hope
I've got to be honest, I've not got a good idea of what the on-the-ground politics of Israel is like, but I have to hope there's a sizable demographic who sees all this as abhorrent as the rest of us.
I hope when they get their turn in power, one of the first things they do is sign up to the ICC.
No
"/s" is the equivalent of ending a quip with a "haha geddit? haha"
If it's not clear you're joking or being sarcastic, perhaps the line isn't very good in the first place
(via a mate)
I think I already read about drug dealers using delivery robots in cities where they have a presence already.
As soon as one of those Boston Dynamic dog bots can be bought at the nearest hardware store with an arm on them, I would not be at all surprised to find out they were being used for crime
I'm saying this with entirely no knowledge of actually how profitable pilfering catalytic converters is