Well I think we can pretty much guess what answers you’ll find at lemmygrad and hexbear.

Not more wrong or more right. Just a different lens of analysis.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Some context, which I’m sure will be downvoted because we don’t like chat control.

The Danes currently hold the rotating presidency for the council. As such they are required to be the architects of the council position, good initiatives and bad.

The EU holds countries that are against government access to chat services and countries that believe access should be routine and warrant-free.

The Danish “architect of chat control” is thus required, by EU law, to define a compromise position and see if that can be voted through in the council.

The compromise position is a combination of “scanning at source” using both known fingerprints and AI, with a warrant based access process for police sources.

As a compromise position that’s possible passable in parliament and council.

I personally think the whole thing the entire thing is unworkable in practice. But the Danes are getting involved because they have to.

That was the foundational concept in powershell; everything is an object. They then went a ruined it with insane syntax and a somewhat logical, but entirely in practiceimpractical verb-noun command structure.

Nushell is powershell for humans. And helps that it runs across all systems. It’s one of the first things I install.

Yes I actually agree. Moss is definitely the butt of some jokes, but he gets so much love in other places that I can stomach it, despite feeling like the show isn’t always completely kind to him.

Yes, I agree.

But I think you need to see it in the larger context. Episode 1, and much of season 1 (series 1 as we would call it here in the UK), is about moving into their world so we get to known them and appreciate them. Jen is the viewers’ guide into this world and her journey towards becoming one of them is the viewer’s journey. So what starts as a laugh at geeks ends up sympathising with the geeks (“but we did all the work!!”) and becoming the geeks (observe how Jen’s office starts as a managers office but slowly ends up with Manga artwork).

So her laughing at the geeks, and her inability to understand them (white noise), is crucial because it takes the viewer’s hand and leads them into the basement.

The most powerful example of this journey is when Jen becomes entertainment manager (“It’s not for you!”) and we have one of the show’s genuinely touching moments , whwn Roy grapples with his breakup and finds release in a session of tabletop RPG. This moment works so well because of the strength of the actors, the script and the fact that it has brought the viewer into the circle; the normies are now loud, obnoxious “business men” who are set free by adopting geekiness.

Well let’s start with the jokes. They are just subjectively funnier, with many tie-backs and connections (Seinfeld/CYE long running set ups).

TITC is laughing at the normies and celebrating the geeks. TITC isn’t afraid to be really funny, which means recognising the human condition and laughing with it. The characters aren’t “good people who fail”, they are “humans who fail”, which mean we recognise them and empathise with them. Who hasn’t wanted to give a really impressive speech and said some bullshit.

BBT is bland. The characters are bland, with only external failures. The jokes dare not really poke fun at anyone and the jokes are sentence-long. Finally the actors and the script just aren’t as out there, so it all just feels dull as dishwater.

All episodes had live audience. Doesn’t mean all the laughter is real laughter, though, but there was definitely a live audience.

Comparing The IT Crowd to The Big Bang Theory is like comparing Pavarotti to a braying lamb.

BBT is the braying lamb, for the avoidance of doubt.

Coming up to 20 years, 17 years married.

I’m not really sure if your comment is a reaction against my statement, in support of my statement ir adding further nuance to my statement.

I certainly believe AI is capable of producing value. I certainly believe AI will take people’s jobs. Exactly because it is able to produce value.

I’ve seen both things first thing, many times, already.

My statement was meant to highlight that it is exactly because it is producing value and taking people’s jobs that we ought to have a debate about whether it should and who it will benefit (and who will lose out) from that great replacement.

Right now, all I see is a further concentration of wealth built on the backs of thousands of years of human creativity. It’s the ultimate rent seeking.

I’m sorry to say that a AI could recreate that look in a flash. And within 5 years you could have a completely consistent, feature length film done in that look.

Let’s not minimize the threat. If we want to avoid being replaced by computers, it’s now the fight has to be had.

How dare you use facts to challenge our beliefs!!

First thing I do to a tv is flick it into a colour graded mode and flick all motion smoothing off.

Agree that it’s HDR, not actually resolution that makes that much difference.

As someone married to a woman I can tell you that I’ve got a strong data signal that it’s not necessarily your gender keeping you from forcing people to watch videos.

deleted by creator

And a good covfefe to you sir!

I agree that it would make more sense if they called it a “household” plan. That’s clearly what it is.