My biggest issue with discord is that I'll get pinged, and have no fucking clue what pinged me.
Even if I get to the notification, often I don't get it right away, and often I don't open it right away either. So when I click on it, which, in most chat like apps will take you to that post/mention/whatever, it just takes me to the channel where I was mentioned. I'm left with no earthly idea why I'm in this chat or what was said that prompted the notification.
When I'm actively in discord, this works okay, since the mention which prompted the notification is likely the most recent thing said, or at least, close to it. The problem is, I'm almost never actively in discord.
I find that if I use discord all the time, which is rare, but happens.... Then I don't mind it so much. However, if I don't use discord all the time, then it's less than useless. I get notifications all the time and I just end up dismissing them because by the time I get to it, there's no chance I'll be able to figure out why I got the notification in the first place.
DMs and very very small communities are an exception, since the volume of messages is so low that generally, even if I get to the notification hours later, the message that prompted the notification is still one of the most recent handful of messages.
To this end, my list of pros and cons for discord are:
Pros:
convenient (when in active use)
good voice chat
a lot of people use it
Cons:
slow notifications
bad notification handling
I feel like the people who run any given community, who are centered around discord, don't have problems with it, since they're pretty much always on it. For someone who isn't always plugged into discord, it's a horrendous nightmare of missed messages and notifications that take you somewhere unexpected. Any complaints about this generally falls on deaf ears because the people in charge, who picked that the community should be in discord, use it so much that they don't really have any issues with it.
Compare and contrast with a competing text-chat service like slack. In general slack doesn't do voice, so there's some differences there, but talking strictly about notifications and such: the notifications frequently arrive within seconds or minutes at most, when you select them, it takes you to the channel where the alert came from, scrolled to the post where the mention that prompted the notification is located, with the specific mention highlighted for clarity. From here, you can scroll back to get context, and scroll forward to see other replies. Contrasted with my experience in discord, you select the notification, you're taken to the channel where the notification originated, and scrolled to a random point in the recent history of the channel. Does this section contain the mention? Maybe, but probably not. Nothing is highlighted. Good luck.
Not defending it, but discord has an inbox menu, where you can see a list of messages that pinged you and jump to any of those messages. It is a button on the top right corner to the left of the question mark and to the right of the search field (desktop).
Ich bin einer der Boomer (196x geboren) und kann bestätigen, dass alle davon wussten und es seit den 70ern in allen Medien regelmäßig Meldungen zum Thema Umwelt gab (siehe auch Gründung der Grünen damals, das war eine direkte Folge dieses Wissens). Wurde von der Mehrheit der Bürger alles ignoriert, weil a) waren Job und Auto und Urlaub wichtiger (siehe auch die Meldung links daneben) und b) wurde dem falschen Teil der Medien geglaubt und deshalb korruptes Gesindel wie die CDU dauergewählt wider besseres Wissen.
Meine Generation hatte alles in der Hand und hat's aus Bequemlichkeit und Dummheit vergeigt. Meine Generation ist ein Arschloch.
1966 geboren, nie ein Auto besessen und einmal in einem Flugzeug gesessen in meinem Leben, wenige Urlaubsreisen und die mit dem Zug, so lange bis ich zu behindert dafür wurde immer Rad gefahren jetzt Öffis. Kleider trage ich schon immer bis sie unrettbar hinüber sind und ich besitze 2 paar Schuhe.
Ich habe gegen Pershings demonstriert, gegen sauren Regen, gegen die Republikaner, für Umweltschutz und gegen die Änderung des Asylgesetzes, für Tierschutz, gegen Rassismus und Faschismus und war schon in der Antifa als das noch nur die waren die Jugendliche mit Holocaustüberlebenden zusammen brachten und für Plaketten an Häusern und Universitäten kämpften die auf die durch die Nazis deportierten und ermordeten Menschen hinwiesen oder die Nazivergangenheit von Politikern und Richtern offen legten und anprangerten.
Ich war die erste die bei uns im Viertel Grün gewählt hat, meine Eltern wählten lange SPD (was sie spätestens seit Schröder bereuen), alle Gewerkschaftsmitglieder vom ersten Arbeitstag bis zur Bahre.
Die Boomer haben uns die Grünen beschert ohne die wir noch viel mehr im Arsch wären heute, weil die Grünen kamen nicht aus dem Nichts sondern aus Bewegungen die viel älter sind als die Partei.
Meine Eltern haben es mit Müh und Not geschafft eine Eigentumswohnung zu finanzieren, weil das bei ungelernten Arbeitern mit Hauptschulabschluss in den 90ern gerade noch so möglich war, dafür war umweltschädliches Verhalten finanziell nicht drin. Wir haben Gemüse auf dem Balkon angepflanzt weil wir es gebraucht haben, nicht weil es "grün" war.
Die ärmeren Boomer waren nicht das Arschloch. Die Armen sind heute auch nicht das Arschloch. Geld ist das Arschloch und die die es besitzen. Sie waren es immer schon und es wird Zeit dass wir sie daran hindern weiter das Arschloch zu sein, aber dafür habe ich mir schon mit 16 angehört ich "soll doch nach drüben" gehen oder ich sei ein "Ökospinner" und "Weltuntergangsfanatiker" oder "Baumkuschler" (Hass auf die Grünen ist so alt wie die Grünen).
Wir müssen aufhören Generationen gegeneinander zu hetzen wenn der wirkliche Kampf ein Verteilungskampf zwischen Arm und Reich ist und die Reichen die Taschen nicht voll genug kriegen können und die Armen sich immer auf jemanden anderen hetzen lassen, auf die Alten, die Kranken, die sozial Schwachen, die Immigranten, die Asylsuchenden, die "arbeitsscheuen" Jungen.... die Liste ist endlos, guckt statt dessen nach oben verdammt noch mal und hört auf nach unten zu treten.
costs me 100 dollars each year just so that I can push an app to their app store, even if I make zero bucks off of it(and if I did, they'd want an additional 30% share of it).
not to mention that I can't develop an app without a mac – an artificial requirement created by them.
it is expensive for developers that aren't in the west
The hardware is expensive, the licensing is expensive, the hardware requires accessories you don't from other companies (dongles, so many dongles), and everything they do is hostile to repairs. Are there any aspects in which they offer a high value proposition?
I am an apple phone user from iPhone1. (While I do not consider myself apple fanboy, switching to android phone is just too much hustle), I have not purchased dongles for myself ever. I have purchased one dongle for my family - for daughter to use it with her headphones, (but androids are not better here with headphone jacks). I do not want to spend much money on my phone, so I buy top model of the phone and wait about 5 years before I switch. Apple is excellent with software updates so all the iPhones always run the latest software. I suspect this would not work as well with droids - software support at least few years ago was less long. So I totally think that I save money with iPhones. Also, have you looked at flagman android phone prices? They are similar or even more expensive than iPhone.
I do understand, of course, that different patter of phone usage may lead to androids being better/cheaper for other people, but not for everyone.
In any case if this is a face off, Apple will win - it has greater, much grater loyal customer base. Sooner or later Apple will have AppleGPT and will include premium subscription into Apple One plan, or whatever it is called. And I am telling this as both an Apple user and ChatGPT paid user.
A trillion dollar company demanding 30% cut of revenue of small developers, on top of annual developer fees and exorbitantly priced hardware with zero reparability and severe environmental impact isn't monetarily expensive enough for you? That isn't loyalty. It's stupid fanaticism that harms everyone else. And I don't want to even start about the petty part.
In what sense is Apple not expensive monetarily, is a better question.
Their hardware is way more expensive than their competitors and they go out of their way to make them difficult to repair, all while making it difficult for third party repair shops to get the parts and schematics that they need. The genius bar goes out of their way to make you pay for a new laptop rather than do a repair that could be done for >100x cheaper by anyone else.
The greedier spreads wider and faster than the bening. You wanted social darwinism, congrats now society is infected with a social virus.
Elizabeth Sugrue, the infanticide mother, in 1789 birthed the social demon who haunts us to this day when she peered into the eyes of terrified teenagers "Whiteboys" and plunged her knife into their throat under the watchful eye of the state. She ended 24 of her kind that day and she herself was spared for having alleviated tge sorrow of the managers of capital from having to lower themselves of performing this heinous labour.
Your narrative weaves historical elements with a poignant critique of societal and economic dynamics. Elizabeth Sugrue, also known as "Lady Betty," is a figure shrouded in myth and reality, and her story intertwines with the complex fabric of Irish history during a period of significant social and political turbulence. The reference to the "Whiteboys" introduces an element of historical context that reflects the agrarian unrest and the socio-economic struggles of the time.
Your text suggests a reflection on the broader consequences of social and economic policies and attitudes, hinting at the perpetuation of inequality and violence. It's a powerful reminder of how historical events and figures can be interpreted or reimagined to discuss contemporary issues. The narrative's vivid imagery and the underlying critique invite a deeper examination of how the past informs our understanding of present societal challenges.
Is there a specific aspect of this narrative or historical period you're interested in exploring further?
User
What do the enclosures have to do with any of this ?
GPT
The Enclosure Acts, significant in England from the 16th to the 19th century, and similar policies in Ireland, are deeply relevant to the socio-economic backdrop you're discussing. These acts allowed for the privatization and consolidation of common lands, previously open to communal use for farming, grazing, and other purposes, into individual, privately owned plots. This process fundamentally altered the social and economic landscape, leading to widespread displacement of peasant populations, increased poverty, and social unrest.
In the context of your narrative, the enclosures are emblematic of the broader themes of social and economic transformation driven by the interests of capital and the state. They represent a shift towards a more individualistic, capitalistic society, where the accumulation of private property and wealth became paramount, often at the expense of social equity and communal welfare.
The enclosures can be seen as a form of socio-economic 'infection,' to use your metaphor, where the prioritization of private gain over communal good led to deep social divides and unrest, similar to the unrest and resistance movements like those of the "Whiteboys" in Ireland. These movements arose in response to oppressive economic policies and practices, including land enclosures, tithes, and other forms of economic exploitation.
Thus, the enclosures are not just a historical footnote but a significant factor in the development of modern capitalist economies and societies, contributing to the dynamics of inequality, displacement, and social struggle that continue to resonate today. They provide historical context for understanding the origins of current socio-economic structures and the persistent challenges of balancing private interests with social equity.
User
How is this relevant to the discussion of closed AI companies who train their models on all of humanity's common intellectual heritage and then keep the AGI models to themselves ?
GPT
The analogy you're drawing between the Enclosure Acts and the practices of closed AI companies is both insightful and relevant. Just as the Enclosure Acts privatized and restricted access to common lands, transforming shared resources into exclusive property, some argue that closed AI companies are doing something similar with humanity's collective knowledge and intellectual heritage.
Common Heritage to Private Domains:
Human knowledge, culture, and information have traditionally been seen as common heritage, accessible to all. Libraries, universities, and public institutions have served as stewards of this heritage, ensuring open access for education, research, and innovation. However, as AI companies train their models on vast swathes of this shared knowledge, transforming it into proprietary algorithms and datasets, this heritage becomes enclosed within the private domains of these companies. Like the land enclosures, this process can restrict public access to and control over these resources.
Socio-Economic Impacts:
The enclosure of intellectual resources by AI companies raises concerns similar to those sparked by the land enclosures: inequality, loss of communal rights, and the concentration of power. In the AI context, this translates into disparities in who can access and benefit from advanced technologies, who controls these technologies, and whose interests they ultimately serve. The risk is that the benefits of AI and AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) might accrue to a select few, reinforcing existing inequalities and creating new forms of digital divide.
Ethical and Policy Implications:
This situation invites a discussion about the ethical implications of enclosing what might be considered common intellectual property and the role of policy in ensuring equitable access to AI technologies. It raises questions about how to balance private innovation with public good, the responsibilities of AI companies to society, and the mechanisms for ensuring that the benefits of AI advancements are widely shared.
Public vs. Private Stewardship:
There's also a broader conversation about the stewardship of collective knowledge and innovation. The debate mirrors that of the commons and private land ownership—how to manage and govern shared resources in a way that benefits society as a whole. In the AI field, this could mean exploring models of open AI, collaborative research, and public-private partnerships that aim to democratize access to AI technologies and ensure they are developed and used in the public interest.
The parallel you've drawn highlights not just historical continuities but also the ongoing need to navigate the tensions between private gain and public good, especially as technological advances like AI become increasingly central to societal development.
It's just an attempt to put the requirement for action back on you. They're hoping you'll get busy and forget about it, or not have a camera, or anything else that'll stop the claim.
discuss.tchncs.de
Älteste(r)