Maybe this is the point, but that might cause SUVs to be prohibitively unsafe, because their center of momentum would be so high relative to impact height. For example, if an SUV with one of these low bumpers hit a barrier, it would probably perform a front flip over it 😂
It’s intended to be much more local and decentralized than the fediverse, under the assumption that over time large fedi instances will exhibit the same issues as large centralized social networks (profit seeking, manipulation, etc)
The internet, in particular social networking, needs to become personal.
I fleshed out an idea for building a personal social infrastructure system that will hopefully accomplish just that, but haven’t put “code to disk” yet.
As time passes it’s becoming more clear that this is ultimately the right way forward, but it’s a big project.
Check out freetheinter.net and send me some feedback :)
Happy to see noita here, it belongs
After 1500 hours I beat nightmare mode, but still haven’t beaten the 33 orb kolmi
I don’t know why more people haven’t mentioned tilix.
Makes me wonder if I’m missing out by using it 😂
I’m in favor of a “ML-GPL”, where models must be made available for free to those whose data was used to train them.
more businesses could facilitate more work, right?
oddly enough, there are models trained to generate different angles of a given scene!
you’re right about the importance of trust. leveraging and scaling interpersonal trust is the key to consensus.
I’m already benefiting from it on a daily basis, and I’m neither of those people.
Capitalists will always capitalize, but that doesn’t necessarily negate usefulness. On the contrary, by some estimates llama3 cost nearly $1B to develop, yet it’s free on huggingface for anyone to download and use.
I’m not trying to argue with you.
It seemed that you were trying to make sense of the gun nut mindset. Gun nuts do indeed think firearm ownership is a fundamental human right, so considering it as such is necessary to understand their perspective.
If you really want to understand their perspective, consider an analogous argument involving some other fundamental human right, ideally one that you strongly support.
An easy one is free speech. Many countries without this right believe it is dangerous and stupid, using a litany of rational assertions and examples to justify themselves.
Consider all of the harm caused by people spreading lies and propaganda. The right to free speech ensures the most evil ideas and people can utilize our most powerful social constructs to attack the very foundations that a stable society depends on. etc…
Every right can be abused, and likewise an argument can be formulated against them based on their potential for abuse. Those that support some right typically believe the benefits outweigh the costs.
Hope this helps.
preach borther!
but for how long?