I can still find modern special effects interesting enough if I find them aesthetically interesting – as though a lot of thought clearly went into them. I understand there were minimal hurdles to translating that vision to film, but it’s the vision itself I appreciate.

I also definitely get the same feeling you do watching older films and especially stage plays, where the constraints of the medium make it even more impressive.

Can you repeat the question?

You’re not the boss of me!

No! Your comment was supposed to be sarcastic and funny, so it needs a “/s” and a laugh track. My comment has no tone indicators, so you can tell I’m being super serious.

Wouldn’t you want to use “vegan” to describe the diet and “veganist” to describe the ideology, then?

No; “veganism” is the ideology, and a “vegan” is someone who practices it. Having “vegan” and “veganist” solves nothing and would be vastly more confusing. The Vegan Society correctly appends the “dietary” part as an afterthought.

Having a word for “non-us” doesn’t really prevent the word from being used rhetorically in an “us vs. them” way, though…

Not the point I was making. The point is that giving it a name (“carnism”) positions it as an ideology (which it is) instead of just some inherently baseline, default position.

It’s kind of like when you stroll into a philosophy or politics discussion and your brain balks at all the lingo.

If you want to compare it to politics, this is something akin to how an anarcho-communist would use the term e.g. “liberal” instead of “non-communist”. Plenty of people in the US, for example, will confuse “liberal” with “hippie-dippie progressive”, but that doesn’t stop anarchists from using the term descriptively (and sometimes as an insult).

that terminology isn’t widely understood outside of vegan circles

The “vegan” versus “plant-based” thing is an original sin; it came from the original Vegan Society definition that was pretty quickly amended long before veganism had mainstream relevance. But vegans aren’t going to completely shed a collective label they’ve used for decades; they’ll continue to push for an understanding of veganism as an ethical stance, which I think they’ve been doing a fine job of. It’s not going to cause enough problems to totally change brand, because inside vegan circles everyone knows, and outside of them, the vast majority of interactions are going to be regarding food. Any amount that “plant-based = vegan” dilutes the brand is going to be much less harmful than “let’s jump ship to another brand (even one that’s near-identical enough to be more confusing)”.

As for “carnism”, okay? That’s just something you can look up; there’s a Wikipedia article breaking it down in as much depth as one wants. If someone leaves an interaction with an ancom thinking that they got called a bleeding-heart progressive for supporting capitalism, okay. I’ll go over to the ancom community and tell them to stop using “liberal” because some people are confused.

But realistically, I don’t think Kolanaki was confused; I think they were just salty that their support for animal agriculture was positioned as an ideology at all rather than inherently normal like society constantly reinforces for them.

it’s both used to describe a diet of non-animal by/products and the broader social movement of advocating against the same

Actually, in circles where “carnist” would be used, “vegan” has a very clear distinction, and it’s the latter. Whether they’ve seen it or not, veganism in those circles will be roughly the Vegan Society’s definition*:

Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms [which we don’t use] it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.

Somebody who’s solely on a plant-based diet (i.e. abstaining from animal products in their food) would be called just that: “plant-based”. The reason “carnist” is used is, like I said, to denote active support for the ideology and not just passive consumption. Plenty of people will go their entire lives without meaningfully engaging with the ideology behind the food they eat, the clothes they wear, etc., which is where the “omnivore” and “carnist” terms come in.

“Carnism” makes veganism a lot easier to discuss, because simply “vegan or non-vegan” places carnism in a position of inherent normalcy. Imagine another movement (especially a minority one) that could only describe anyone in terms of “us or non-us”. Positioning carnism as an ideology (which it objectively is) challenges its otherwise unchallenged position.

* Notably, The Vegan Society is the origin of both meanings.

Mod of /c/vegan@lemmy.world, and we use “carnist” pretty regularly. “Carnist” either means supporting carnism (“carnist rhetoric”) or someone who subscribes to it (“a carnist”), where carnism is (I think Wiktionary summarizes it best):

The human ideology that supports the slaughter of certain animals and the consumption of their meat or other products (leather from skin, etc).

By contrast, a meat-eater is more broadly an “omnivore” or “omni”. This will vary by person, but “carnist” will be used over “omnivore” when the person isn’t just passively participating in the system but actively arguing in support of the ideology behind it.

It’s a term very rarely seen outside vegan circles, so it’s stunning to see on a list like that; I wonder if Kolanaki talked with a vegan, said some stupid shit, got called a “carnist”, and has been big mad ever since.

Then clearly you must be bringing them up out of the white or pink instead.

I think “patriot” is one of those titles that should only be given, and that ideally happens to someone who’s done something especially heroic or monumental for their country. I think of myself as patriotic, because I care a lot about my country despite its enormous, gangrenous flaws. I want to help it realize its potential. But to say “I’m a patriot” these days – I agree with you – really only connotes blind nationalism.

I really like physicist Dr. Angela Collier. Not all of her videos are about science, but at least the plurality are. Her videos are generally pretty casual, and she doesn’t really script.

I also really like Practical Engineering for civil engineering stuff.

I clarified this a bit in a follow-up comment, but my first comment was simplifying for the sake of countering:

[it’s not in the public domain] because the actual human work that went into creating it was done by the owner of the AI Model and whatever they trained on.

Their claim that the copyright for AI-generated works belongs to the model creator and the authors of the training material – and is never in the public domain – is patent, easily disprovable nonsense.

Yes, I understand it’s more nuanced than what I said. No, it’s not nuanced in their favor. No, I’m not diving into that with a pathological liar (see their other comments) when it’s immaterial to my rebuttal of their bullshit claim. I guess you just didn’t read the claim I was addressing?

Oh, sorry, I said that totally wrong: I meant that I really appreciate your first comment and that it’s not worth your time to reply to their bad-faith follow-up comment.

The answer is that it’s messy and that I’m not qualified to say where the line is (nor, I think, is anyone yet). The generated parts are not copyrightable, but you can still have a valid copyright by bringing together things that aren’t individually copyrightable. For example, if I make a manga where Snow White fights Steamboat Willie, I’ve taken two public domain elements and used them to create a copyrightable work.

So it’s not like the usage of AI inherently makes a project uncopyrightable unless the entire thing or most of it was just spat out of a machine. Where’s the line on this? Nobody (definitely not me, but probably nobody) really knows.

As for courts ever finding out, how this affects trade secret policy… Dunno? I’m sure a Microsoft employee couldn’t release it publicly, because as you said, it’d probably violate an NDA. If there were some civil case, the source may come out during discovery and could maybe be analysed programmatically or by an expert. You would probably subpoena the employee(s) who wrote the software and ask them to testify. This is just spitballing, though, over something that’s probably inconsequential, because the end product is prooooobably still copyrightable.

This kind of reminds me of the blurry line we have in FOSS, where everyone retains the copyright to their individual work. But if push comes to shove, how much does there need to be for it to be copyrightable? Where does it stop being a boilerplate for loop and start being creative expression?

Just as a sanity check: the person you’re responding to is a serial troll and what I can only describe as intellectually dishonest at best or a pathological liar at worst. They make up whatever they want and will never concede that the fucking nonsense they just dreamed up five seconds ago based on nothing is wrong in the face of conclusive proof otherwise.

You shouldn’t waste your time responding to this cretin.

Removed by mod

You’re just making shit up. The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has affirmed that AI-generated work is in the public domain. Put up or shut up.

Edit: Additionally, the US Copyright Office writes:

As the agency overseeing the copyright registration system, the [Copyright] Office has extensive experience in evaluating works submitted for registration that contain human authorship combined with uncopyrightable material, including material generated by or with the assistance of technology.

It’s not that it requires two (did you mean twin?) actors; that’s what I meant about “not fully writing the play around them”. The example here has someone wake up in a different place than they just were a split second ago, and the effect is really convincing because they’re twins. You could make this work without twins, but it’s a neat bit of trickery that’s easy and seamless because you have twins to work with.

I have seen The Prestige a long time ago! I totally forgot.

A Data breach?

Does ChatGPT apparently need to be brought up in literally every conversation about schizophrenic people now regardless of direct relevance?

Anyway, if you’re interested diving deeper, Fredrik Knudsen (Down the Rabbit Hole) made a great video on Davis and TempleOS back in 2018.

Technically the numerical code still gives you a precise search key to find other people discussing the same issue.

… You know, as would be useful for a serious operating system where online support doesn’t mean trawling the bowels of Reddit praying somebody’s had the same issue and found a reproducible solution.