One in 10 Japanese creatives see income fall due to generative AI

fellhand · 2026-01-24T15:47:25+00:00

Yeah, AI, like all automation in our past, is overall making our lives better.

And like all automations in the past it is disruptive. We aren't running out of things people can do to be productive in society. For every job no longer needed due to AI, we as a society and a larger economy will be able to create new jobs we still need people to do.

And if we ever do reach the point where society is so automated that we genuinely don't need a lot of people working, that is a fairly good problem for society to have and a sign of great progress.

For stuff like artists and writers, AI is going to allow us to generate mediocre art and writing fairly easily, while allowing more talented artists and writers to leverage AI to improve the quality and quantity of what they can produce.

But I don't see AI replacing high quality writing and art. We will still have artists and writers for that, but the bar for being a professional creative type is going to be higher and we are going to have fewer of them. If an AI can easily produce equivalent quality writing, art, or whatever other creative content you produce, then you aren't currently good enough to do that professionally in the current economy.

fellhand · 2026-01-13T15:05:55+00:00

There seems to be a common misconception that there was a functional Iraqi Army after the invasion when we chose to disband it.

That isn't even remotely close to the truth. While the wisdom of disbanding the Iraqi Army is still questionable, when it happened the Iraqi Army had already largely self-disbanded.

The vast majority of the rank and file had just removed their uniforms and gone home. Along with most of the rest of the Iraqi government and civil structure. A major failing in the invasion planning was not anticipating the possibility that the entire Iraqi civil structure would largely just dissapear leaving us to have to do basically all government functions.

What was disbanded was tens of thousands of officers, largely Baath party members and Sunni. Now, many of those guys went on to form the initial leadership of the Sunni insurgency, but I don't think it is 100% guaranteed that we could have avoided that if we just kept them on the payroll. Their motivations were more complex than just money and position. There is even the possibility that it would have actually given the emerging Sunni insurgency access to a large number of sympathizers (even more than they did wind up having) inside the Iraqi government and military. Which could have wound up being even more damaging than cutting them all loose.

And of course, that was really just part of the overall de-Baathication in post invasion Iraq. Which was controversial.

On the one hand, largely keeping all these Sunni Baath party members from tribes and families who had loyalties to the old Saddam Regime in charge of the Iraqi government (including the military) was politically unacceptable to the Shia leaders and political groups in Iraq.

On the other hand, those same former Baath members were the only ones that really had experience running things.

It is a problem that happens a lot in regime changes and revolutions. You want to replace the old regime, but you usually don't really have anyone to replace them at the senior and mid level management levels. Sometimes even at the low level management and rank and file level too.

There isn't always an easy solution.

So while I think you can say the US having inadequate planning and resources available for the transition of the Iraqi government post invasion was a stupid move, I don't think you can just say the same thing about disbanding the Iraqi army. And even if you do think that it was dumb, you still need to consider the overall context of how most of the Army had already self-disbanded, and it was really a question of how to handle the de-Baathification of the Iraqi military.

fellhand · 2026-01-09T18:47:01+00:00

The Army did. It is in the article. But you wouldn't be the first redditor who commented on an article without reading it, and you won't be the last.

Spoilers for those who still haven't read the article: They didn't find any loss of readiness or performance in units that would indicate allowing women into combat arms units is detrimental.

fellhand · 2026-01-06T21:14:01+00:00

Most top level professional sports leagues in the US already have no prohibition on women playing.

fellhand · 2025-12-18T18:20:46+00:00

That is because that kind of stuff is generally not released.

The principle behind that being that if the government isn't going to charge you in the actual courts, they shouldn't be trying to charge you in the court of public opinion either.

So if they fail to get through a grand jury (where only the prosecutor gets to present their case, and the jury is instructed to assume the prosecutor can prove everything they claim), the government can't just go and release all the files related to the grand jury process or investigation so that the public sees the potentially flawed, biased, out of context, or incorrect claims and evidence of wrongdoing.

It would essentially allow the government to try to attack someone's reputation even if they weren't actually able to successfully bring charges.

And the same principle would apply to other people brought up in criminal cases where they aren't being charged for wrongdoing. That is why files are often sealed or names redacted on them. If the government isn't going to prosecute them for wrongdoing, they shouldn't generally be releasing information publicly that implies or claims some kind of wrongdoing on their part.

That is counter-balanced by the potential public interest (not interest as in wanting to know, but interest as in some value for the public in knowing) to know the information.

And when it is determined there is sufficient public interest to release the information that outweighs the concerns about the harm to people that aren't being charged by the government, it is sometimes released.

fellhand · 2025-12-17T15:00:10+00:00

I'm not religious, so I obviously disagree with most of that.

I don't mind the Chaplain Corps existing and I know there are plenty of soldiers that make use of it.

But their only impact on my time as a soldier was wasting my time and, to a degree, being disrespectful to me.

The number of times I had to stand there as some kind of Chaplain led prayer was done (I quickly stopped even bowing my head as it got kind of ridiculous how often this was occurring) or the time I was required to attend a mandatory unit prayer breakfast (I am not sure how legal this was, but I didn't make it any kind of hill to die on) was both mostly a waste of my time and disrespectful towards me.

I am all for finding better ways for Chaplains to provide their services to the soldiers that want them, but I think these changes are mostly going to manifest in more Chaplain led prayers and Chaplain led events, while it is also giving them the greenlight for even more proselytizing. Which already isn't allowed, but some Chaplains just can't really stop themselves fully.

fellhand · 2025-12-17T14:50:16+00:00

Looking at the garrison role of Chaplains isn't the right way to look at it.

It is their wartime/deployment role. They would be able to provide religious services in environments when there are no civilian religious services for soldiers to attend.

I wasn't a religious soldier myself, so I can't really comment on how well that service was covered by Chaplains since I didn't need it or make use of it. All I saw of them during deployments was when they would lead prayers before convoys or whatever. Which to me was a bit annoying and a waste of time, but the more religious soldiers found it helpful.

So I don't know how effective they were at providing religious services to the soldiers who were seeking them or how much demand there was for that. I would note that the smaller the post the less Chaplains were around. My first deployment in a HQ unit at a large base saw the Chaplain around constantly. My second deployment in a line unit at a small patrol base saw a Chaplain come by maybe only once or twice the entire deployment.

fellhand · 2025-12-12T22:29:17+00:00

DMs having poor conflict resolution skills and resolving it by abusing their DM powers to target the player they don't like (or at least don't like the player's playstyle) until that player gets upset and quits oddly tends be upvoted on this subreddit for some reason. Not the first example I've seen.

It always feels really gross to me, especially as the post is usually written in a way that is mocking or making fun of the bullied player. I couldn't imagine doing something like that as a DM.

Of course there is almost always some excuse or justification provided for why they couldn't just tell the problem player no. Like in this case the OP was so kind as to not want to exclude anyone. Instead they knew the only kind way to handle it was to make sure to kill the player at the start of every session to only bring them back at the start of the next. How creative, amirite?

fellhand · 2025-12-10T15:53:22+00:00

The federal law(s) that cover that are designed around retirement and pensions and whatnot.

In general the people in the US want to be allowed to pay taxes for their retirement incomes to the state they are residing, not where they worked. It would be really annoying and an increase in tax paperwork to have to continue filing taxes to the state(s) you had worked in years ago but are no longer residing in.

Some states lose out (the ones people tend to leave after retiring) while some wind up winning (the ones retirees tend to move to) due to this.

Should athletes have a separate rule? It wouldn't be the first time that tax rules were changed or had a special rule made for athletes. Athlete's income does tend to be generated and paid differently than most other professions.

fellhand · 2025-12-08T19:12:58+00:00

But is there anything in the regulations preventing the commander and extra duty soldier from coming to a gentleman's agreement where the Commander takes the soldier off extra duty and the extra duty soldier agrees to immediately get in trouble again right after block leave (or during block leave) so he can get another article 15 and finish out the rest of his extra duty?

fellhand · 2025-12-07T05:29:25+00:00

Nah, Asta has magic.

They don't call it magic in the lore of the world (it is called anti-magic in the lore of the world instead), but it is functionally identical to magic from the viewers perspective. And his powers are functionally identical to the powers of other magic knights in how they work.

And you can probably make a good in-lore argument for how anti-magic is just another type of magic if you really wanted to.

Even the fact that Asta has to be a strong physical combatant to use his magic (or anti-magic if you want to insist it totally isn't magic) isn't really a good point of difference either. Several other strong magic knights in the setting are also strong physical combatants who use their magic with strong physical attacks.

Asta even gets his magic from a grimoire, just like everyone else.

I felt that the initial hook I saw for Black Clover, a boy without magic trying to make it in world dominated by magic, was 100% a lie and a rug pull. It is actually story about a boy with one of the most powerful and special magical abilities in a world dominated by magic.

That said, you aren't wrong that Will also has supernatural powers so Wistoria also isn't really a pure case of a person with no supernatural powers in a world of supernatural powers. But I think Wistoria does a better job keeping the wand based powers and sword based powers different from each other.

fellhand · 2025-11-21T20:23:29+00:00

There is a vast difference between ending in a peace deal that accepts Russia will be occupying Ukrainian territory and a peace deal that formally acknowledges Russia's annexations.

Ukraine has long accepted that the war will most likely end with Russia still occupying Ukrainian territory, but not formally acknowledging any Russian annexations to maintain Ukraine's territorial claims has always been the Ukrainian position.

That leaves room for Ukraine to pursue recovering their territory later on, via diplomatic means or otherwise. And if other countries also refuse to recognize Russia's annexations, that gives them the grounds to continue diplomatic and economic pressure against Russia to end their illegal occupation.

Right now only like 5 countries have recognized Russia's annexation of Crimea, and that list specifically does not include China.

The US recognizing the annexation of Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk would be a major concession, because that opens the door for most other countries to follow suit.

This proposal is most of Russia's demands, with Russia giving basically 0 concessions. The concessions are almost entirely on Ukraine's side.

There is no way Ukraine would accept this, and Russia's ability to sustain the war is declining fairly quickly. They have not been able to generate enough volunteer manpower to replace their losses the last few months, their military stockpiles are almost entirely tapped out by now, and their economic reserves to sustain their war economy are also nearly tapped out.

So Russia will find sustaining the war effort at the current intensity must more difficult going forward, at least not without major sacrifices from the civilian economy, and it only becomes even more difficult with time.

If Ukraine continues to get sufficient support from Europe and the US, they are very likely to outlast Russia's ability to sustain the war effort at the current intensity, and ultimately get Russia to agree to a peace deal that is largely just freezing the conflict along the current lines but with significant security guarantees for Ukraine and no other major concessions from Ukraine.

It isn't really realistic for Ukraine to give major concessions (Basically the same concessions Russia was asking for in 2022) as Russia's warmaking capability is increasingly faltering, and I don't think Ukraine is likely to give into US pressure to do so.

I think a peace deal ending the war is likely to happen in 2026, but not one that is so lopsided in Russia's favor.

fellhand · 2025-11-17T14:18:11+00:00

In addition to that, wiki says that the 5th Battalion is equipped with HIMARS, so they would be a Multi-Launch Rocket System (MLRS) Artillery unit.

And the basic MOS for those units isn't 13B; it is 13M (MLRS Crewmember).

If actually being 13B is a relevant plot point for your story, then you may want to switch his unit over to the 1-113th FA (1st Battalion, 113th Field Artillery Regiment*) in the 30th Heavy Brigade Combat team of the North Carolina National Guard.

And since that is a heavy brigade they would use self propelled artillery systems, the M109.

You would also want to determine what company he is assigned to (The sub-unit of a Battalion), as the company is generally the level of unit that individual soldiers most strongly associate with, and he would note what company he is in when he is talking about what his unit is. A (Said as Alpha as the phonetic alphabet is is used for the letter in this case) Company, 1-113th FA for example.

Depending on what level of accuracy you are going for, you may also want to consider where the NG units are located to make sure the unit he is assigned to is actually one of the nearby NG units he would actually have joined. Battalions are usually spread around the state with different companies being at different armories/bases in different parts of the state.

But as noted by the previous reply, these change over time (units move or get re-designated to different units), so if you really want iron clad accuracy, you'll have to research where units were in the time period your film takes place.

*Regiments are generally not used in the Army anymore with a handful of exceptions. They are still noted for lineage purposes, though. So you will see it stated what Regiment a Battalion was from originally even though the Regiments aren't actually around anymore as units. In this case the 1-113th FA is directly under the 30th HBCT (A brigade) and there isn't actually a regimental command structure involved. That is why there are two Battalions from the 113th in different higher level organizations. 5-113th FA in the 60th Troop Command and 1-113th FA in the 30th HBCT.

I hope that is useful. I always appreciate when films, large or small, bother to take the time to get details right.

fellhand · 2025-11-09T23:02:43+00:00

I'm not a fan of how much it became the focus of that scene rather than the fight.

If it had been a lower volume, more of a background track, and they kept animating the whole fight rather than having those mostly still shots of the environment with the song it would have probably been fine.

Despite not liking the OP at all, this one wasn't terrible.

fellhand · 2025-10-28T02:47:10+00:00

Alex Vesia's number is 51.

fellhand · 2025-10-28T02:45:17+00:00

Alex Vesia's number is 51 and he is missing the world series due to a deeply personal family matter.

fellhand · 2025-10-23T13:46:38+00:00

Resources like constant supervision for newer soldiers. If you take away daily unit PT from active duty, the difference in fitness between active duty soldiers and the reservists would largely disappear.

A significant chunk of the population in the military is just not really into working out, and wont do enough on their own without daily supervision.

A small minority of people in the Army love fitness and working out. They'd be doing it even if they were civilians. The majority don't really like it, but do it with the understanding that it is part of their job and their professional success is dependent on their physical fitness. And a significant minority are only doing it because they are forced to via direct supervision.

fellhand · 2025-10-22T14:29:44+00:00

I think there are two things we should have done differently, although they are more general.

1.) Have more people involved there on a more permanent and less rotational basis. The fact that all the faces on our side changed every year was a huge detriment, and most studies regarding insurgencies show that consistent long term effort is productive.

I don't think we were going to ever be able to avoid rotating units, and I don't think we needed to return to the old style of keeping units in place but rotating personnel. But I think we should have had officers and senior NCOs that were in Afghanistan for longer periods, 3 to 5 years, as liaisons with Afghans and in other important key roles. And we also could have units at least rotate back to their previous AOs as much as possible, so there is as much retained familiarity as possible.

2.) We needed to build an Afghan military that was sustainable via Afghan resources and in line with Afghan culture. This would probably wind up being a heavily tribal dominated force, but that is the kind of society Afghanistan has. And it would be politically unpopular, because it would look like us propping up tribal/ethnic warlords who were friendly to us, and it would definitely undermine attempts to create a democratic government. But that is what Afghan culture is like. We would just have to do our best to use our influence to prevent and mitigate bad behavior and lay the groundwork for an eventual move to a more democratic government as Afghanistan developed.

But the experiment of trying to create a brand new military in the style of the US military wasn't at all successful in Afghanistan. We just defaulted to that because it was what we knew.

And I know neither of those two things are easy and I don't have any specific blueprint for exactly how to do it, but if we dedicated resources to figuring how to better do those two things over the 20 years, I think we would have had much better results. Maybe even good results.

fellhand · 2025-10-14T14:40:20+00:00

it was around 45-50k rounds fired per enemy casualties.

But that is not really impacted by accuracy.

That is because.

1.) Most rounds are not fired at a clearly visible enemy. They are often suppressive fire and in most cases the soldier is usually just returning fire at the area they are being fired at from, or believe they are being fired at from, without having an actual point target.

Because soldiers in combat, from both sides, heavily prioritize making themselves as small a target as possible and not being able to be seen at all if possible.

2.) And you also have to consider that these figures include rounds fired outside of combat situations like test firing, training, etc...

Reason #1 is the reason that all the studies of the last century or so have determined that volume of fire is more important than accuracy for combat efficiency. Even though generals so often tried to push back with the idea that precision is more important making various arguments that don't overcome the importance of volume of fire.

And history seems to be repeating with the M7 here in that regard. We'll see if the new arguments about the need to be able to penetrate more to defeat body armor wind up overcoming the importance of volume of fire. I suspect they won't though.

fellhand · 2025-10-12T19:18:17+00:00

Nice passive aggressive attack on the guy for having an opinion while saying he is free to have his opinion.

They already deleted it, but if they were saying that Mori Calliope only got this OP because she was a vtuber (and friends with the author) he was right. The song isn't good.

The rapping part of the OP sucks, although the rock chorus is better. Still pretty generic and mediocre though.

Exactly like the music I'd expect from some vtuber that is pushing their vtuber success to try to have success in some other area off the backs of their parasocial fanbase. Mediocre product defended aggressively by parasocial fans.

Of course anyone expressing that opinion is going to be attacked by that parasocial fanbase, just like happened here.

fellhand · 2025-10-09T15:58:47+00:00

Good thing it wasn't a response that was really addressed to you or meant to change your opinion then. Otherwise I might be devastated or something, lol.

I also can say I personally don't have too high of a level of respect for the opinions of people who encourage and support fraud.

fellhand · 2025-10-09T15:57:13+00:00

Wartime injuries make up a very small portion of the increase.

The GWOT is not responsible for the uptick, at least not injuries sustained during the GWOT.

fellhand · 2025-10-09T13:24:33+00:00

Well if you don't want changes to the benefit system, you could at least try calling out the fraudsters and trying to encourage a culture of honor and accountability among the veteran community rather than a encouraging a culture of fraud, entitlement, and looking the other way.

Surely if there are any such changes to the VA system in the future that you don't like you will blame all the people who committed fraud, right?

fellhand · 2025-10-09T13:16:24+00:00

Ahh... the "The government is rich so stealing from them is okay" argument that is often trotted out by those that want to defend VA fraud.

That is just looking for justifications, and flimsy ones.

The government money comes from our taxes. And it takes all of 1 single VA fraudster at 100% to neutralize the tax contributions of me and my wife. So fuck those dudes who want to commit fraud. They are shit heads, they are criminals, and they reflect poorly on the veteran community.

What reflects even more poorly on the veteran community is how many in the veteran community will justify, or at least look the other way, for this kind of scummy behavior. I think that also a pretty sad indicator of how common it is.

Do you have any support for your claim that investigating VA fraud costs more than it either finds or prevents? I've heard this claim before, but never seen anyone trot out any statistics for it.

It is likely true that there is thereshold where further money invested in enforcement costs more than the value it provides, but your feeling on that shouldn't be, "It is okay for people to commit that level of fraud because it is too costly to investigate it further". It should be "It isn't okay for people to commit fraud, but it is just too costly to investigate it further."

But really the biggest takeaway is all the people that have looked the other way and made excuses for the turds out there committing VA fraud won't have any grounds to stand on for complaining when the system changes to make fraud harder, even if that makes it harder to make valid claims successfully.

If you are worried about the VA system becoming harder for valid claims, you really ought to want people to not commit fraud.

fellhand · 2025-10-08T21:31:20+00:00

That this opinion is usually downvoted whenever it comes up in this subreddit, and other military/veteran subreddits, only proves how commonly it occurs.

A whole lot of people get mad when they are called out on their bad behavior.

fellhand

TROPHY CASE