[+] -10 points 1 year ago (8 children)

Most Linux people play games, but that was not why they started using Linux. When people who only want to game start using Linux, it will become like any other OS, where protecting the uninformed users from themselves and others will have take more priority, thus limiting choices and freedom.

Gamers will not make Linux better, Linux has been nice since most people using it has an interest in Linux or open source or programming or other values that align with the community. Meaning there is a good balance between pure users, and users who also contribute in some way ( active on forums, code, etc ).

Gamer values generally does not align or even intersect with Linux communities, and the scammers/exploiters/malwares that feed on gamers will follow them. So we get more pure users, and also pure malicious contributions (viruses, misinformation, scams masquerading as game tips etc)

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    I would be for a state owned chain, does not have to be completely decentralized, it's just good tech that can make the payment processors of today obselete.

    Basically require each bank to run nodes, while letting the central bank of the country hold the keys to mint new coins.

    I mean one could also have verifying nodes run independent.

    The tech is there, doesn't have to mean use anarchy moneys, it just means an overhaul of our ways of transferring value around.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    To be fair though, if almost anyone had a 3D printer, only plastics would be distributed, and only the plastic that is needed.

    What I mean is that you don't have to manufacture in advance and actually ship plastic products to every corner in the world so that these plastic garbage cab sit on shelf and then end up in a landfill after not being sold for tens of years.

    Basically on-demand plastic garbage production would in most cases where the amount required is not well understood be beneficial if most people did it.

    Because almost everything is made in excess, and the wasteful production is just offset in cost.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    You could also go the other way, if you are smart incapable of being efficient at me menial labour. You will go hungry, until such a time you are hungry enough to do the menial labour for very cheap.

    Turning us into two distinctly separate classes, low educated low intelligence, and high intelligence, highly educated elites controlling swarms of smart AI

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    I admire your positivity. I do not share it though, because from what I have seen, because even if there are open weights, the one with the biggest datacenter will in the future hold the most intelligent and performance model.

    Very similar to how even if storage space is very cheap today, large companies are holding all the data anyway.

    AI will go the same way, and thus the megacorps will and in some extent already are owning not only our data, but our thoughts and the ability to modify them.

    I mean, sponsored prompt injection is just the first thought modifying thing, imagine Google search sponsored hits, but instead it's a hyperconvincing AI response that subtly nudges you to a certain brand or way of thinking.

    Absolutely terrifies me, especially with all the research Meta has done on how to manipulate people's mood and behaviour through which social media posts they are presented with

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • view more: next ›