You are in fact expressing judgement, and your comments are getting more judgemental as the thread goes on. This is the excuse people always use to portray their feelings and judgements as objective "uncomfortable truths".
That was quick. You are haranguing this person for not upholding your standards of social media use while failing to hold yourself to a standard of intellectual honesty.
When people think things are deeply true of themselves it can be very, very difficult for them to see when it isn't true of others. Especially if there's an embarrassing or shameful element.
People (and kids) were a hell of a lot more interesting the longer you didnt see them.
Pictures on social media counts as interaction but its very limited. You still get to feel like you see them regularly.
You get your desired social interaction but it is arguably fake. Then we stick a display on your mums forehead and rotate advertisements. Not offensive at all.
You get your desired fake soical interaction fix therefore, when you finally meet the person irl (after say a year) you can both look at your phone the whole time because you "interact" with them every day. There is no need to tell stories or go do something.
Alternatively, when someone understands a deep truth it can be easy for them to cut through the excuses others use to hide that truth from themselves or others.
Sure can, but when you refuse to entertain alternative hypothesis or respond to evidence, you're just building a cage to protect yourself from nuance or from recalibrating your views slightly.
The evidence provided wasn’t sufficient to me, nor is it anything I haven’t heard from dozens of other people both online and real life.
You’re free to disagree, hop on and Tweet a picture of it or whatever, but you should at least have respect enough for yourself to acknowledge that in matters such as this others can have genuine differences of opinion and be dogmatic about them, and have thought through such matters at least as much or maybe more than you yourself have.
Bsky/Twitter, same thing but with different marketing.
> Physician, heal thyself.
What opinion did you provide? As far as I can tell you started with this whole nonsense about judging others. Did you lose track of the conversation or do quips like this make you feel good about yourself?
I don't have Bluesky. I already told you twice I deleted my accounts.
> See what social media is doing to you?
I can see that you imagine I'm in some kind of torment nexus, but again, you're bringing your biases and preconceptions into this discussion and not listening to what people are saying, so you end up boxing shadows.
Sorry, my fault I genuinely must have confused you with someone else.
Though my general statement I think still stands regarding Blue Sky. That’s another damn cesspool.
> I can see that you imagine I'm in some kind of torment nexus, but again, you're bringing your biases and preconceptions into this discussion and not listening to what people are saying, so you end up boxing shadows
Hmm I must be imaging the comments you wrote calling me these things then.
I get it, when things get heated everyone you're talking to blends together. I tried my best not to be insulting or to piss you off, but to the extent I did I apologize.
You will have deeper and better conversations if you know what questions to ask.
Things that work for you might not work for others. Communication and connection is a need, not a vice.
The idea that you can tell them that their relationships aren't important is so chauvinistic and inappropriate. You ought to take a step back and reflect before commenting further, that's out of line.
You’ll have even deeper connections if you have more things to talk about and genuine curiosity about the novelty of those things instead of “already knowing the questions to ask” - good lord are we robots or something?
> The idea that you can tell them that their relationships aren't important is so chauvinistic and inappropriate. You ought to take a step back and reflect before commenting further, that's out of line.
Save this stuff for someone who cares because it’s not me.
There is no evidence their curiosity is ingenuine, that's your image of them but it doesn't have a basis in reality. It's based in your biases and preconceptions about social media.
I'll refrain from criticizing you for being a chauvinist if you agree to take that behavior someplace else, because it's not for this community. Save that for some toxic no-holds-barred social media. Maybe think on whether your actions are contributing to the social media environment you decry.
> I'll refrain from criticizing your for being a chauvinist if you agree to take that behavior someplace else, because it's not for this community. Save that for some toxic no-holds-barred community like Twitter.
No thanks. You don’t get to define what is toxic behavior nor do you speak for this community or others.
Also, grab a dictionary. Your usage of chauvinist here is incorrect.
> There is no evidence their curiosity is ingenuine, that's your image of them but it doesn't have a basis in reality.
They already said they need information about events to have something to talk about. That’s not how conversations work, nor is it how you establish new friendships or build and maintain existing relationships.
> It's based in your biases and preconceptions about social media.
Well they are biases (yours is showing) but they’re not preconceptions, they are just conceptions.
I don't believe you, but it doesn't really matter. (I'm happy to admit I have a small investment in helping you see my perspective, for what it's worth. It's part of my human need for connection.)
Why would I care about your opinion of me? If I recall from the thread so far it consists of being chauvinist and toxic. That’s no different than some random person yelling at me from across the street while out walking my dog or something.
Just looking out for you and for the community. If I was being a chauvinist I would want someone to tell me. If someone was being a chauvinist to me I would want someone to say something.
I'm not attacking you, I'm giving you feedback. I'm being as neutral and uninsulting as I can be.
You’re misusing the word chauvinist here or rather if you think you’re not can you please explain what the word means? I don’t understand your usage of it in this context.
> If someone was being a chauvinist to me I would want someone to say something.
On the flip side you’re being condescending toward others, “giving feedback”? C’mon. You know it’s good practice to not give advice to those who don’t ask for it, right?
When someone does something inappropriate, you tell them so as politely as possible. Just like if someone's shoe is untied or has toilet paper on it, you let them know. No one needs to ask, those are the table stakes.
(I would also point out that this thread started because you were offering unsolicited advice about using social media. I could be wrong but it seems to me like you think it's appropriate to offer someone advice unsolicited if you have a perspective that's able to see through their "excuses".)
This was the closest definition to my usage I found (American Heritage #4):
Exaggerated and unreasoning partisanship to any group or cause.
What I meant was that you were insisting your subjective viewpoint was the only one that was valid. Other viewpoints you reduced to "excuses."
I can see how it comes off condescending, and I apologize for it. There's a paternalistic element to telling someone they've done something inappropriate, and that should be reduced as much as possible, but I don't think it can stop us from saying something altogether.
I've deleted my accounts too (HN obviously notwithstanding) but telling people they should disengage with their family because they don't need that information is patronizing and undermines your point. They get to decide what they need.
You need not get that information. Other people have different needs and priorities. What if the reason they are so concerned about getting updates on this kid is that they have serious medical issues? What if it brings a ray of sunshine on stressful days to see pictures of them? What if missing these updates means missing family functions and becoming more isolated and lonely? (Note that they confirmed my last speculation.)
What if, instead of berating people for using social media, we discussed how we might build a healthier alternative?
> What if, instead of berating people for using social media, we discussed how we might build a healthier alternative?
Why do we need to build one? Before the internet, we had letters and memos. The Email and IM came. The reason to have a feed is to share things, it shouldn't be for people to come consuming it. And there's no reason for it to be social. To have a special feed that mix everything from everyone on the platform according to "the algorithm"
No need to build something else. Blogs, Email, and IM are still here.
I think there's good parts of social media that are salvageable. I think it's generally good to be able to communicate with anyone and encounter people you otherwise wouldn't. I think we can have social media without having feeds optimized for "engagement" or any single metric. I think blogs and email are great, I just don't think they're the can-all-be-all.
Welp, I ought to stand on business I suppose, I think social media communities are too big. I think it would be less toxic if we were balkanized into smaller communities, and interacted with people of unlike minds in a more considered and intentional way. As it is, it becomes a free for all for dunking on people. Small communities of like minds can become too insular, ideas need to be challenged, but they also need space to grow and develop in a friendly environment.
It's a lot less weird if you consider the possibility that you don't understand this as well as you think, and the reason people are consistently correcting you is because you are mistaken.
"My intuition doesn't explain something, therefore my prejudice is justified." Evolutionary psychology functions better as a tool to present one's prejudices as neutral and without ideology or politics than it does for explaining the world.
You're taking this other person to task for making too many assumptions, and now you're assuming I'm their alt account. Maybe take some time to cool off or move on to a different conversation, you're not making a case here.
Additionally, the claim that these children lacked a father/adequate parenting is not in evidence. They were probably more likely than average to be born into stable two-parent households since their parents were planning to have children & evidently have access to healthcare.
I agree, great series of videos, but there's a dependent clause:
> ...when the goal is to show a reimplantation of something as "higher" level as SD.
Implementing autograd is interesting, but it's not directly in service to our main subject (Stable Diffusion) and would be a major yak shave. Comparable in complexity to the original project.
