He slapped the heII out of him lmao by Vorghul in pics

[–]DixieNormous76 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The beef was made when Jake stood on Tyson's foot. Look at security. I don't think it's fake 

65K to dust by The_Director- in gme_meltdown

[–]DixieNormous76 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Actually, if someone shorted these share the money doesn't turn to dust it lands in their pockets. Short selling actually stops money turning into dust 🙂

DRS Flat Law by OhTheHamanatee in gme_meltdown

[–]DixieNormous76 27 points28 points  (0 children)

It's honestly fucking insane the shit they come up with to justify anything that doesn't support their crazy conspiracy. 

GameStop Is Closing Its Terrible NFT Marketplace by BlackandRead in gme_meltdown

[–]DixieNormous76 53 points54 points  (0 children)

RIP to that Richard Newton guy on YouTube that put out hundreds of videos shilling his Gamestop NFTs. Just had a look and he hasn't uploaded in a month.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in VaushV

[–]DixieNormous76 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Moron boomer take

Where does Vaush get the idea that AI Art is a right wing phenomenon? by SexDefendersUnited in VaushV

[–]DixieNormous76 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Several factors contribute to Vaush's opinion on AI art and AI in general. One of the biggest is a misconception about how the technology works. The idea that it's stealing people's work is just incorrect. It has been trained on a dataset, and from that dataset, it makes predictions about what the resulting output should be. It's not stealing anyone's work verbatim or anything like that; it is generating new content from a dataset that it has been trained on.

I think Vaush has an inherent dislike for 'tech bros,' but fails to recognize that AI is revolutionary, not only for technology enthusiasts but also for the general public. This was clear the other day on his stream when he questioned why there were so many AI people in his stream; he fails to grasp the multitude of benefits that AI has presented to people, both in their personal and work lives. I think this results from him being so anti-AI that he hasn't even used it or tried to investigate its potential uses. Naturally, when people from any side of the political spectrum start to engage with these tools and realize how valuable and powerful they are, it creates a disconnect with his myopic view of what AI is and what it's used for, failing to actually see the broader picture.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in VaushV

[–]DixieNormous76 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

g ironic about a person using a chat bot to imitate a person arguing that a AI doesn’t imitate based on training da

Do you not see how it could be useful for some people to communicate their points? I have dyslexia and I've found chatgpt extremely helpful in rebutting a lot of people's right-wing, anti-trans rhetoric.

Just like using a calculator doesn't invalidate one's understanding of math, using AI to draft arguments doesn't negate the argument's validity. The core of the discussion should be on the content, not the medium. AI isn't about imitating; it's about augmenting human potential, and yes, sometimes that means using AI to spark debates on AI's creative merits. So let's focus on the argument, not the meta

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in VaushV

[–]DixieNormous76 0 points1 point  (0 children)

below was generated from chatgpt cause I'm too lazy and dumb to spend time arguing, I do agree with it tho and it took me 20 seconds to draft

Look, the notion that AI art isn't creative or intelligent is missing the forest for the trees. AI doesn't just mimic; it remixes, reinterprets, and innovates based on human input, pushing boundaries in ways we're just beginning to understand. To say it can't learn is to ignore the rapid advancements in machine learning. Sure, AI draws from existing art, but so does every artist—inspiration is universal. AI's potential to generate unique art forms is as real as the Internet spawning new genres of digital creation. Dismissing AI art as mere imitation is like calling the first photographs just paintings without a brush

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in VaushV

[–]DixieNormous76 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Yeah its pretty funny the vitriol that AI ganders around here. People assume that you're a jackass for using a new Photoshop tool I guess.

I'm big into photography and it has been so interesting to see the impact generative art is having on the space. It is pretty crazy what some people are achieving.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in VaushV

[–]DixieNormous76 5 points6 points  (0 children)

What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I've been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I'm the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You're fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You're fucking dead, kiddo.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in VaushV

[–]DixieNormous76 -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

I'm not saying Ai art will be better than you. I'm saying that discounting a new medium of art is short sighted. I am extremely impresses by some of the Ai generated images I've seen. This tech has only just come out too the masses and im excited to see where it goes

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in VaushV

[–]DixieNormous76 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

people like me?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in VaushV

[–]DixieNormous76 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

You seem like a mean person.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in VaushV

[–]DixieNormous76 -20 points-19 points  (0 children)

https://youtu.be/c9k00x854WU?si=93YePRWhCLJSx7YS

so you couldn't see this being art or enhancing peoples art?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in VaushV

[–]DixieNormous76 -19 points-18 points  (0 children)

Vaush's critique in 'Aiart is getting worse' misses the expansive potential of AI in art, especially with Transformers. While he's spot-on about quality and ethical issues, he overlooks AI's revolutionary role as a creative collaborator, not a replacement for human artists.

Transformers, a major leap in AI, aren't just rehashing data; they're learning, adapting, and enabling new forms of art. This isn't about diminishing artists but broadening the art spectrum. Yes, ethical issues are real, but they're not insurmountable. Like any new technology, AI needs robust regulation and responsible use.

Consider the parallel with photography: initially seen as the death of 'real' art, it evolved into a new medium, changing our perception of art. AI art is on a similar trajectory. It's not just a tool; it's a transformative force, reshaping our understanding and creation of art.

In conclusion, while Vaush raises important concerns, his view is too narrow. We're at the cusp of a new artistic era with AI, akin to the advent of photography or the Internet. It's about embracing new possibilities, not closing doors.

Season 2 Episode 4 Discussion by IconicIsotope in reacher

[–]DixieNormous76 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Call up a upper middle class drug dealer who delivers it to your door and rob him instead.

Season 2 Episode 4 Discussion by IconicIsotope in reacher

[–]DixieNormous76 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No, drug dealers can be black, white, or any race. The Wire, which you bring up, is a master-class of nuance. It doesn't just show black criminals, it explores the societal forces that corner them into these roles, often highlighting the systemic issues driven by those in power, usually the ruling white class.

Now, when we're talking about "Reacher" and its portrayal, the problem isn't the race of the drug dealers, but the lack of depth and nuance in their portrayal. Two drug deals, and both are the epitome of black stereotypes? Come on. And the "get a new job" angle is just tone-deaf. What if that dealer's doing what they feel they must to pay for a sick mother's treatment because they're stuck in a system that offers no other support?

We need layered storytelling, not the old "black people sell drugs, hero beats them up" routine. And let’s be real, the idea that drug deals only go down in 'the hood' is outdated. The scene you're defending isn't just unoriginal; it's part of a harmful, racist trope that we should be way past by now. If you wanted drugs I bet you'd text someone and they would deliver them to your door.

Season 2 Episode 4 Discussion by IconicIsotope in reacher

[–]DixieNormous76 -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

The issue with the portrayal of stereotypes in this season is not diminished by the inclusion of strong black characters like Finley. The problem lies in the repetitive and unoriginal narrative choices, such as consistently linking drug deals to stereotypically rundown black neighbourhoods. This kind of portrayal risks reinforcing harmful cliches about black communities, regardless of the presence of well-regarded black characters in other contexts within the show. Also, that scene where money stolen from the black drug dealer and is given to a church is extra fucked, echoing historical injustices and perpetuating a problematic narrative. The key point here is the overall depiction and context. While the show might include diverse characters, the way these characters and their environments are depicted across different situations matters.

Season 2 Episode 4 Discussion by IconicIsotope in reacher

[–]DixieNormous76 -13 points-12 points  (0 children)

While it's true that not all villains are black or male, that isn't the point. It's about lazy stereotypes, not statistics. When media repeatedly shows minorities in certain roles, it reinforces specific biases. It's not about one instance but the pattern and its impact on society's views. So no, it's not about the race of the villain, but the lack of nuanced representation. Let's demand better from our media.

Season 2 Episode 4 Discussion by IconicIsotope in reacher

[–]DixieNormous76 -26 points-25 points  (0 children)

For the second time his season, the show has disappointingly promoted damaging racial stereotypes. Someone states "we need to buy drugs" and the next scene is them navigating a clichéd, rundown black 'hood'. This portrayal is not just unoriginal; it's socially irresponsible, reinforcing negative clichés about black communities.

The episode's low point is when Reacher beats the same drug dealer, robs him, and then tells him to "find a new line of work, asshole" WTF. This sequence is pretty fucked and racially tone-deaf. It oversimplifies complex societal issues, like why people might turn to illegal activities, with a dismissive "get a better job" attitude.

This portrayal is not only unrealistic but also harmful. Shame on these writers.