With Proton, a large majority of games run on Linux, and most even better than on windows.

But the thing is, we don’t need to develop products. New products are just further resource usage, more greenhouse gasses, more “infinite growth”. Also, a company or individual having “an edge” in competition by developing something first is simply waste of resources. Now only they are allowed to improve upon it, make it more efficient, whatever. If this didn’t exist, yea they’d be incentivized less to create it in the first place, but also now everyone could take it and make it better.

We have to go away from thinking as individuals in the direction of thinking as humanity.

Doesn’t a SpaceX engineer technically already have a sugar daddy?

It was about 20$ per day, not top cash

I have no clue exactly, and forgive me if this is inappropriate, but I could imagine porn would work maybe?

Hijacking top comment to say this post is misinformation: https://lemm.ee/comment/12015917

I’m sorry, can everyone not read the actual link? They specifically say they are not training generative AIs, i.e. LLMs.

They are using the data to train non-generative AIs for stuff like emoji and channel suggestions. I.e. “you use this emoji a lot, so it’s displayed first” or “people that are in these channels of yours also join these other channels you’re not in yet”.

This is class A misinformation being spread here, good job. It’s unbelievable that I’m the first one to actually verify the truth of this post, because I wanted to share it further and that’s what you do before.

That’s how it is currently and maybe also your opinion. But that doesn’t mean it has to be like that in a society. It’s your opinion that everything public can go private at any time (training proprietary private AI), but we can decide as a society that’s not how we want to do things. We can require stuff that used public data to be public as well.

And yeah I kinda get to choose that. As democratic society, anything that the public (i.e. including me) decides, goes. Of course, if there are people like you that don’t want stuff trained on public data to be required to be public, democracy will also work in the sense that we don’t get that, as it is currently.

It’s not about it being used to train AI. It’s about the AI either not being open source/I don’t get access to it (i.e. not benefitting me) or reddit being paid for my comments (i e. also not benefitting me).

If this AI training would get me or the public access to the AI, or I would be paid for my comments instead of Reddit, I’d be fine with it.

They are often, consciously, but the biology of us works so that most decisions are made unconsciously. The nature of all biological life is that there’s a survival instinct, which is in full effect for religious people as well. So they try to live as long as possible anyway, inventing all sorts of reasons for doing so.

Religious belief is inherently not made to make sense, it’s to alleviate fears. Trying to make sense of it rationally like you do is futile.

I don’t use a wallet and put my bank card and id card in it, I don’t need anything else

Be honest: you never had any dark thoughts? Never did anything bad?

Yes, you might not be doing this particular bad thing. Yes, your inhibition of your dark thoughts might be better. Yes, you might be very sheltered and have a loving upbringing.

But I’m pretty sure if you truly look inside yourself without shying away, you will see that yes, you belong to this species.

Because more medium businesses will fill the need, people that are not at the cap yet. And qualified workers, equipment or work areas are all resources, which eventually will be reallocated to whatever is in demand. I didn’t specify a timeframe with my “temporarily”, but I was talking decades, i.e. also enough time for new workers to be trained.

That’s why I said temporarily. If there’s demand for millions of more cars, capitalists will find a way to provide the supply very quickly. There’ll be less demand for idk, private jets or sth billionaires buy, and the resources previously used for the fulfillment of billionaire demand will start going to fulfilling the demand of the new things desired by lower classes that now have more money. Obviously it’ll not happen instantly because stuff needs to be repurposed, new supply paths created, but eventually, the resource usage will be equal again.

You’re talking (partly) about two different things.

The simple truth is that our planet only has a certain amount of replenishable resources which leads to only a certain standard of living being possible for a certain amount of people.

Thus, the problem you’re talking about only gets solved by reducing the amount of people or the standard of living, globally.

The problem OP is talking about is inequality in the standard of living between people.

Outlawing billionaires alleviates both problems, but the general resources problem only temporarily until the people with lower standard of living now raise theirs by having more resources available, which is what you talk about.

Inequality gets improved permanently by this, so it’s a good change for that problem.

The limited resource problem you’re talking about, though, doesn’t get solved by this at all, there might be a short dip in less resources used while resources are being reallocated, but then it’ll likely go back to before, because most people use as much resources as they can to make their lives as nice as they can.

To solve our problems, both population as well as standard of living need to be limited. Because if either one is allowed to grow infinitely, resources will never suffice long-term.

It’s pretty simple. If they didn’t want to live, why didn’t they self-immolate in a place where no one can put them out? By choosing a place with people they implicitly accepted that there might be people there that would try to not let them die. Maybe they even subconsciously hoped to be stopped.

Stopping physical harm happening to others is a very natural way of behavior. It’s almost certain it happens when a couple of people are present. You can’t ever blame someone for trying it.

And then there’s the case of open fire being able to spread and hurt others.

I was speaking of something substantial and specific, not just some abstract stuff. For example, idk, "why not halt all arms deliveries to Ukraine? We need the weapons/money ourselves. I.e. some actual question about the topic. Because if you can’t form a question like that, then it doesn’t even make sense really to “hear a different perspective” as this different perspective will have no meaning for you.

But it seems anyway, after reading OPs responses to this thread, that they don’t really care about diverse viewpoints, just about their own viewpoints not being disregarded/dismissed/argued against.

People right of centre usually have no problem at all with companies like Reddit behaving like it is, like going for an IPO etc, so they haven’t attempted to switch off it yet. I’d just go back to reddit if you want to see these right-wing viewpoints. You haven’t really explained why you don’t want to go back, it seems suited to solve your problem.

But then your problem does not seem to be diversity. Why do you act like it is?

You know you’re allowed to make comments in threads challenging people if you think their comments are too one sided?

If you suspect there is an unexplored side to something, you can ask about that, and you’ll very likely get an answer, at least as far as I’ve seen. But usually if no one does that then yeah, like you say, you’ll only see “one side”.

You don’t have to be a passive observer, you can get the discussion you want by guiding it.