This is an interesting argument. I don't think the two are completely analogous, and the whole thing falls apart once you go beyond consumer level usage due to piracy's inability to make new things like AI can. While piracy isn't going to get any game developers or musicians fired, AI image gen very likely will. The more it improves, the harder it will be for companies to continue justifying paying real artists.

That said, you do make a good point that many pro-piracy arguments can be used all the same to be pro-AI image gen. At least at the individual consumer level.

He's a leading expert in domestic abuse, of course they want him on the case!

It's a pretty old screenshot.

the government saying we can make you safer by limiting your behavior is just tyranny

I know, right? That's why I should be allowed to wildly swing a machete around public spaces. Because limiting my ability to do so is tyranny!!! And kids should be able to bring grenades to school because we wouldn't want to impede on their rights! Fucking /s if you couldn't figure that out.

And your entire gun analogy makes zero sense. Regardless of anybody's opinion on gun control laws, it is true that you will be able to better defend yourself against a bad guy with a gun if you also have a gun. But driving while you're drunk will not make you any safer when the guy in front of you is also drunk. The two subjects are nothing alike.

This is insane to me. How people can use the internet with ads is just beyond me.

My friend did have an adblock, but it was the one built into Brave (iirc) by default. I noticed they knew it was there and active, but didn't really think twice about any of the sites it didn't block ads on. I assume they just didn't know it was possible to block certain ads, never really crossing their mind that some adblockers are better than others. No, if theirs can't do it, no adblock can.

I also think years and years of unskippable commercials on cable TV, and now even streaming services, has made people kinda numb to it.

Sad thing is I guarantee they'd keep a majority market share after doing this. Few people would even be aware, and fewer still actually give a shit about their privacy. As for ads on the desktop, that might push people away... but then again, I had to practically force uBlock Origin down my friends' throat after finding that they've had ads on YouTube for years and didn't really care.

Hell, he fought Ozai while in the Avatar state. Maybe he should have just “accidentally” killed Ozai while in the Avatar state

Remember that he didn't just enter the avatar state during the northern water tribe attack, he spiritually fused with the raging ocean spirit. I feel like that gives him a bit more moral innocence than just straight up killing people on his own. It's also worth noting he almost did exactly this. After smacking his back on the rock and reawakening his avatar state, he barely regained control before straight up killing Ozai.

That said... I actually hate the way he solved his unwillingness to kill the fire lord. An entire season of struggling over it and then suddenly some deus ex machina lion turtle pops up out of nowhere with no foreshadowing and just gives him the answer right before the final fight. Super lame and unearned ending to his moral struggle imo.

That is part of the concern, yes.

Not entering (don't care for Soulslikes nor am I from the EU), but I want to thank you and demigod for doing a giveaway. Anyone willing to do a giveaway, especially with things they're buying with their own money, is really cool.

Are the uh... maggoty cum farts optional or?

I would love to know where the people who downvoted you are getting the time and energy to read every single article they see a headline for.

The two boxes are meant to be different types of lighting. The box on the left is a warmer, yellow lighting while the box on the right is a colder, blue lighting, which you can tell from its effect on the grey background. The portions of the dresses inside of this "lighting" are the exact same colors, which I tried to help demonstrate with the second picture. The portions of the dresses outside of the "lighting" represent their real color without any lighting affecting them.

The point of the image is just to show how two different colored dresses could look exactly the same depending on the lighting. At the same time, the real dress from the original image is seen as different colors by different people because brains are weird and they interpret the lighting differently.

Some people see a gold and white dress in a blue-tinted light like they're in the shade, while others see a black and blue dress that is overexposed by a bright yellow-tinted light.

Where does the hate come from?

He hordes more wealth than almost anyone else in the entire world. The man could fucking cure cancer and I would still hate him and consider him a horrible person. Nobody needs or deserves that much money when so much of the word is struggling to get by. And nobody makes that much money without exploiting others.

I named my first ferret "Girl" and her sister "Yu". One of my turtles is named "Turtle". My creativity knows no bounds.

I did name my dog Sophie though, so one out of four could be worse.

This is the saddest good news I've ever read.

The dress inside the [left] box is still black and blue (with yellow tint). Inside the [right] box the dress is white and gold, with a blue tint.

The black and yellow colors inside the boxes are actually the exact same color, and the same goes for the blue and white colors inside the boxes (which is what the seamless bars connecting them is there to demonstrate). But they look completely different, right? The picture is showing us two different ways the exact same colors can be interpreted differently depending on the context surrounding it.

If you go to my profile and look at my comment before this one, I posted two slightly edited versions of the image that better show how they're the exact same color.

The way this connects to the original image of the dress, is that some people see a gold and white dress because they think the dress is in blue-tinted lighting, as though they were standing in shade. People who see an overexposed image with a bright yellow tint, on the other hand, will likely see a blue and black dress. I couldn't tell you why it happens, but it's the way our brains perceive the lighting that's doing it.

That would be because the outlines themselves are not the same colors, just the blue/white and black/yellow sections. Here's an image I quickly edited with the outlines and skin removed, so you can see just how much an effect they have on the image. Both dresses still look normal, but they no longer look like completely different colors when compared together this way.

(edit): And here's the same image with the outer boxes removed, to show how much the lighting is affecting things, where one of the dresses just looks completely wrong to me now.

Yup. Really you don't even need the color picker, as the two horizontal bars seamlessly connecting the two dresses are there to show the same thing.

I think the most fascinating thing about this example image is that I can trick myself into thinking the dress on the left is gold and white. By zooming all the way in so that I can only see the black portion of the dress inside the box and then squinting, it begins to look gold to me. Then scrolling up slowly, the blue portion comes into frame and looks white. It isn't until I zoom out that the illusion is broken.

I was once able to see the original image as black and blue (though I haven't managed it today unfortunately), and its baffling how large of a difference it is. You'd think its like some bright sky blue or something, but no, its a deep blue like in the image I sent and our eyes are laughing at us.

I've always really liked this explanation image you can find on Wikipedia page for it. Essentially, people who see white and gold are mistaking the lighting to be cold and blue-tinted, rather than warm and yellow-tinted.

The portions inside the boxes are the exact same colors, you can easily check this with a color picker.

Fuck you even more.

I've never understood this pov. Sure you can say no vote was the same thing as a vote for trump, but surely the people that actually voted for him are worse, no? I can understand 'fuck you just as much', but even more?