LadyAutumn @ LadyAutumn @lemmy.blahaj.zone

Trans woman - 9 years HRT

---

Read more

Posts

23

Comments

1,379

Joined

2 yr. ago

Moderating

---

Your first statement is ironic because the SatellaView is literally internet downloaded games. It used satellite internet. You also didnt need anything other than the peripheral and the included software disk. It downloaded and stored the games locally.

That being said its not entirely related to the question of downloaded games on the switch 2. SatellaView games were all free. The service was free. You just paid for the peripheral. The games were a variety of stuff, some that were minor modifications of existing games, some that were basically leaderboard based challenges, and some that were actually pretty fully fleshed out titles based on existing franchises.

The voice acting bit youre remembering is true, but the games themselves were still downloaded via satellite and stored locally on the peripheral.

I am just genuinely speechless than you seemingly do not understand how sickening and invasive it is for your peers to create and share sexual content of you without your consent. Yes its extremely harmful. Its not a matter of feeling ashamed, its a matter of literally feeling like your value to the world is dictated by your role in the sexualities of heterosexual boys and men. It is feeling like your own body doesnt belong to you but can be freely claimed by others. It is losing trust in all your male friends and peers, because it feels like without you knowing they've already decided that you're a sexual experience for them.

We do know the harm of this kind of sexualization. Women and girls have been talking about it for generations. This isnt new, just a new streamlined way to spread it. It should be illegal. It should be against the law to turn someone's images into AI generated pornography. It should also be illegal to share those images with others.

No an image that is shared and distributed is not the same as a fantasy in someone's head. That is deranged. Should CSAM also be legal because making it illegal is like criminalizing the fantasies of pedophiles? Absolutely insane logical framework you have there.

This isnt fantasy. It is content. It is media. It is material. It is produced without the consent of the girls and women being sexualized and it commodifies their existence, literally transforming the idea of them into sexual media consumed for the gratification of boys and men.

It is genuinely incredible to me that you could be so unempathetic, so impassive, so detached from the real world and the consequences of this, that you could even make this comparison. You have seemingly no idea what youre talking about if you believe that pornography is the same thing as mental fantasies.

And even in the case of mental fantasies, are those all good? Is it really a good thing that boys see the mere existence of the girls around them as inherently some kind of sexual availability?

This is just apologia for the sexual commodification and exploitation of girls and women. There literally is no girl being sexually liberated here, she has literally had the choice taken from her. Sexual liberation does NOT mean "boys and men can turn all women into personal maturation aids". This ENFORCES patriarchy and subjugation of women. It literally teaches girls that their bodies do not belong to them, that its totally understandable for boys to strip them of humanity itself and turn them into sex dolls.

It's sexually objectifying the bodies of girls and turning them into shared sexual fantasies their male peers are engaging in. It is ABSOLUTELY different because it is more realistic. We are talking about entire deep fake porngraphy production and distribution groups IN THEIR OWN SCHOOLS. The amount of teenage boys cutting pictures out and photoshopping them was nowhere near as common as this is fast becoming and it was NOT the same as seeing a naked body algorithmically derived to appear as realistic as possible.

Can you stop trying to find a silver lining in the sexual exploitation of teenage girls? You clearly don't understand the kinds of long term psychological harm that is caused by being exploited in this way. It was also exploitative and also fucked up when it was in photoshop, this many orders of magnitude more sophisticated and accessible.

Youre also wrong that this is about bullying. Its an introduction to girls being tools for male sexual gratification. It's LITERALLY commodifiying teenage girls as sexual experiences and then sharing them in groups together. It's criminal. The consent of the individual has been entirely erased. Dehumanization in its most direct form. It should be against the law and it should be prosecuted very seriously wherever it is found to occur.

Yes, finding out that your peers have been sharing deep fake pornography of you is absolutely fine and a normal thing for young girls to go through in school. No girls have ever killed themselves because of this exact sort of thing, surely. This definitely will not add in any way to the way women and girls are made to feel entirely disgustingly dehumanized by every man or boy in their lives. Groups of men and boys reducing them and their bodies down to vivid sexual fantasies that they can quickly generate photo realistic images of.

If the person in the image is underaged then it should be classified as child pornography. If the woman who's photo is being used hasnt consented to this then it should be classified as sexual exploitation.

Women and girls have faced degrees of this kind of sexual exploitation by men and boys since the latter half of the 20th century. But this is a severe escalation in that behavior. It should be illegal to do this and it should be prosecuted when and where it is found to occur.

They did originally, the term has just become loaded as time goes on and so they've generally switched to the term "gender critical", amongst others.

Is radical a bad word? Its use is generally associated with revolutionary politics. The usage of the term by TERFs stems from second wave feminist theory. They have to specify that they are Trans Exclusionary to distinguish them from radical feminists as a whole, who are not necessarily Trans exclusionary.

Idk how its been disproven. America has moved right every single election over the past 3 decades, even when dems have won.

My apologies, I genuinely did not know the exact ethnic makeup of Iran and thought that the country largely still identified with wider Arabic culture. I looked into it and did see that was an incorrect assumption on my behalf due to their geographical location. I appreciate you correcting me on that, and I meant no offense to any of the ethnic groups that together form Iranian culture.

America bombing Iran was a very incendiary move and it knows that. The entire debacle with Iran is very obviously meant to distract from domestic issues in America and the ongoing genocide of Palestinians by Israel.

I'm by no means defending the Iranian regime. They've done despicable and horrific things to their citizens. Its just ridiculous to not acknowledge how Iran is "3 weeks away from having a working nuke" any time it is convenient for the US or Israel, and not for years in between. I know that nuclear accords were ongoing and that the regime was refusing IAEA inspectors, and also that they were enriching uranium, but beyond those things I am as of yet unaware of any tangible definitive evidence of nuclear bomb development in Iran.

Ah yes, Iran's famed 3 decade long nuclear war program when they're already... very closely allied with 2 nations with fully developed nuclear arms programs. Mhm, mhm. Definitely. They were right around the corner this time, just like in 2023 and in 2020 and in 2017 and in 2013 and in 2009 and in 2003 and in the early 90s. Any day now they'll have super giga nukes. Israel has decided that the best safeguard against imaginary things with no evidence is to murder every single Islamic person. They have the right to defend themselves you know, it absolutely has nothing to do colonialism/racism/islamophobia nope no siree. /s

What are you anticipating for the automated driving adoption rate? I'm expecting extremely low as most people cannot afford new cars. We are talking probably decades before there are enough automated driving cars to fundamentally alter traffic in such a way as to entirely eliminate human driving culture.

In response to the "humans are fallible" bit ill remark again that algorithms are very fallible. Statistically, even. And while lots of automated algorithms are controlling life and death machines, try justifying that to someone who's entire family is killed by an AI. How do they even receive compensation for that? Who is at fault? A family died. With human drivers we can ascribe fault very easily. With automated algorithms fault is less easily ascribed and the public writ large is going to have a much harder time accepting that.

Also, with natural gas and other systems there are far fewer variables than a busy freeway. There's a reason why it hasn't happened until recently. Hundreds of humans all in control of large vehicles moving in a long line at speed is a very complicated environment with many factors to consider. How accurately will algorithms be able to infer driving intent based on subtle movement of vehicles in front of and behind it? How accurate is the situational awareness of an algorithm, especially when combined road factors are involved?

Its just not as simple as its being made out to be. This isnt a chess problem, its not a question of controlling train cars on set tracks with fixed timetables and universal controllers. The way cars exist presently is very, very open ended. I agree that if 80+% of road vehicles were automated it would have such an impact on road culture as to standardize certain behaviors. But we are very, very far away from that in North America. Most of the people in my area are driving cars from the early 2010s. Its going to be at least a decade before any sizable amount of vehicles are current year models. And until then algorithms have these obstacles that cannot easily be overcome.

Its like I said earlier, the last 10% of optimization requires an exponentially larger amount of energy and development than the first 90% does. Its the same problem faced with other forms of automation. And a difference of 10% in terms of performance is... huge when it comes to road vehicles.

Exactly. Bring back trams, build less suburbs, better apartment housing. If we want a society reorganized around accessibility then let's actually build that.

I never did say it wouldn't ever be possible. Just that it will take a long time to reach par with humans. Driving is culturally specific, even. The way rules are followed and practiced is often regionally different. Theres more than just the mechanical act itself.

The ethics of putting automation in control of potentially life threatening machines is also relevant. With humans we can attribute cause and attempted improvement, with automation its different.

I just don't see a need for this at all. I think investing in public transportation more than reproduces all the benefits of automated cars without nearly as many of the dangers and risks.

I am entirely opposed to driving algorithms. Autopilot on planes works very well because it is used in open sky and does not have to make major decisions about moving in close proximity to other planes and obstacles. Its almost entirely mathematical, and even then in specific circumstances it is designed to disengage and put control back in the hands of a human.

Cars do not have this luxury and operate entirely in close proximity to other vehicles and obstacles. Very little of the act of driving a car is math. It's almost entirely decision making. It requires fast and instinctive response to subtle changes in environment, pattern recognition that human brains are better at than algorithms.

To me this technology perfectly encapsulates the difficulty in making algorithms that mimic human behavior. The last 10% of optimization to make par with humans requires an exponential amount more energy and research than the first 90% does. 90% of the performance of a human is entirely insufficient where life and death is concerned.

Investment costs should be going to public transport systems. They are more cost efficient, more accessible, more fuel/resource efficient, and far far far safer than cars could ever be even with all human drivers. This is a colossal waste of energy time and money for a product that will not be par with human performance for a long time. Those resources could be making our world more accessible for everyone, instead they're making it more accessible for no one and making the roads significantly more dangerous. Capitalism will be the end of us all if we let them. Sorry that train and bus infrastructure isnt "flashy enough" for you. You clearly havent seen the public transport systems in Beijing. The technology we have here is decades behind and so underfunded its infuriating.

Its very convenient that corporations can both be people and not be people depending on whatever outcome is best for them.

She literally has a seat on the nation security council, meaning she is directly involved in all decision making surrounding US military interests and foreign policy. She sat in the "situation room" and had a direct say in US foreign policy decisions.

She participated in decision making surrounding US participation in the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Its really not disputable. The VP used to be far more a ceremonial position in the 19th century. In the modern era this is not the case.

Its also largely at the discretion of the president how much power and authority the VP has. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were close throughout his presidency. Her opinion and word absolutely was relevant to him.

I'm considering this and how best we can implement a practical solution to this. One possibility would be to add a rule asking that timeline posts add some or all pictures not in the main post but in the comments. Another would be to remove image posts entirely and direct that traffic towards other communities.

I think the NSFW tag is a good idea, if our community didnt already have a rule banning NSFW image posts. I also would prefer to keep the NSFW tag connected with NSFW content cause I think starting to use it for other things would diminish its use for actually filtering out NSFW content.

"Moderate genocide and gay marriage"

Genuinely beyond parody. And your problem isnt that that was the only alternative lmao. Neoliberals say the wildest things

I feel the same about dogs honestly. I prefer older small dogs because I find that when they do cross my boundaries I'm less likely to be injured in anyway. I honestly dont know how I would be able to live with large dog. Its funny that you say that cats cross boundaries a lot, because my experience has definitely been the opposite 😅 a dog is the size of a person too. When those cross my boundaries I usually get physically hurt. I suppose the experience of other people must be different lol