Maybe I'm just pedantic, but if it's on a phone or tablet, isn't it not "PC gaming"? I'm honestly a little confused what they're going for. I guess "mobile games of the graphical calibre expected of PC games"? But, like, Myst is a PC game. Monkey Island is a PC game. Thomas Was Alone is a PC game. There's a wide range there in graphics... And phones are mobile...

Along with the others I'd also mention Outer Wilds and Viewfinder

I totally agree in principle, but to give this particular article the benefit of the doubt, I feel they're specifically trying to directly counter right wing talking points. So rather than saying "being a man is meaningless" to a bunch of people who feel strongly about male identity, they're instead saying "there's more than one way to man. Here's a good male role model now!" to try and reach some middle dudes who are conflicted and getting preyed upon.

I agree that in the fullness of time we shouldn't focus on this stuff, but I'm a bit worried about perfect being the enemy of good, and continuing to preach to our choir while 40% of dudes fall into a belief that women are the enemy and need to be controlled and shit.

I'm a man, my wife made the first move, and I'm very glad she did! Taking the step from friend (or even just acquaintances) to more is risky for anyone. But, and maybe I'm biased here, I think it's currently even more risky for guys. Word can get around, and you're more likely to not just lose the one friendship, but to be labeled "creepy" generally if you're wrong. Of course it's possible for that to happen to a woman, but it's way less likely for a woman to be perceived as a creep in general, and also men don't talk amongst themselves the way women tend to.

Anyway, I knew my wife from a social space, and I didn't want to be the guy who poisoned the environment and made it an uncomfortable location for women by pursuing any of them. So I was friendly and tried to be as non threatening as possible, which meant no asking out. So I was very relieved when she made a move!

Don't know if your situation is anything like that, I'm just unsure of your source that says "active woman means short term". I mean, think of all the dudes hitting on strangers in bars which either turns into a one night stand or a short fling. The averages have got to be better than that, right?

Yeah basically! There's a reason most romantic comedies end with them starting to date. It's because that's the zany exciting bit. After that part, the next 40 years or whatever is a roommate who lives in your home with you, and you do taxes together, and you eat dinner together, and you go to your shared friend's homes to hang out, and maybe you teach weird little gremlins how to be humans, and you talk after work about how your day went, and what you're planning to do in the future.

And that stuff can be great! But looking like a model doesn't make that stuff much better. Even people who live with models probably "get over it" pretty quick. You can't be in awe 18 hours a day every day for 15 years. But, having a shared foundation of experiences and mutual respect does make those things easier. Liking each other's friends does too.

You can learn to love someone, and you can learn to find an attractive person unattractive through interaction.

One thing you could try, if you haven't, is dating someone you connect with, and have a fun time with, even without "romantic spark". Attraction can be important in a relationship, but in a long term relationship spark often doesn't last anyway, and it's other things that actually keep people together. Getting along well, working well together, handling stress in complementary ways, etc, are all more valuable long term.

So just as an experiment you could try dating someone for something "long", but not actually that long in the grand scheme of things. Maybe 3 months, roughly one season. Even if you're not physically attracted to them, try dating them anyway. If it doesn't work, you haven't actually lost anything. Just a bit of time. And you will have officially "had a girlfriend", and gained some amount of relationship experience, even if it wasn't the best.

And if it just so happens that you're just not an "early term" guy, buf you're actually a pretty good "mid-term" guy, then that's great! Keep going! You haven't got a lot to lose, in a sense, so you're available for experimentation.

To be fair, we don't see like reverse engineered printing. Printing is reverse engineered seeing. If we saw like this post is claiming shrimp see, and blue was blue and green was green and yellow was yellow, we wouldn't be able to print by mixing three colours. We'd need one pigment per photoreceptor, same as we do now.

Children, in my experience, have relatively few boundaries or concern for social space. How do you handle a situation where a child runs up to you, or hugs you, or crawls all over you, etc? Especially if the parents aren't aware of your preferences, and thus may not see the issue with "kids being kids".

To draw parallels to my own experiences, I may not want to sexually assault random attractive women, but I don't typically have them lay on top of me and hang off me non-sexually. It would at least be more temptation, I would assume... Adult women tend to keep a formal distance, because they know that attraction is present and don't want to encourage it, if they can help it.

Also, if I can add another question on here, what age range are we talking about? Does the pedophile community have identity labels for people who are interested in particular ages? Or is there instead some "golden age" that basically all pedophiles are attracted to, and virtually no one is attracted to kids younger than that, for example.

Okay, I trust that you'll all respect that I'm entering a Judgment Free Zone.

There was a period in my life where I would buy grocery store potato salad and use it as a dip for Cool Ranch Doritos, and it was actually pretty good!

I don't do that anymore, but all I can say is that it's possible. Thank you for respecting my experiences.

You know... I hadn't even noticed that outlet wasn't GFCI... Ha!

Ok, you (and everyone else in thread) are right, the idea of rewiring the whole box wasn't appealing to me, but if I'm being objective it's actually not that much work and is probably less money overall than the smart switch itself.

Thanks folks, for shaking the blinders off me!

I don't know the answer to the title, so I'll answer the body. The answer is "it depends".

If you're talking to someone in a technical setting, then servers are the physical machines. The computers themselves, sitting in a room somewhere. Or maybe a virtual server that pretends to be a physical machine, but runs on a real server that sits in a room somewhere. Whereas a website is some location you can put into a web browser and get content that "feels" like it's all one thing.

The reason this distinction matters is because you can host multiple small websites on a single server. For example there's no reason a particular machine couldn't host 10 different lemmy instances, if it's got enough processing power.

But on the other hand a popular website may have its work spread across multiple servers. Maybe I've got a database server, which is a machine that only runs the database. And then maybe I have a few different web servers that actually serve "the webpage", but I've also got a cache server that stores part of the webpage and serves that when it can, etc. Websites like Facebook or Twitter are considered one website but have thousands and thousands of servers.

But if you're talking to someone in a non-technical setting, yeah they're basically the same.

I have two criticisms of this view.

The first is the distinction between "replacing humans" and "making humans more productive". I feel like there's a misunderstanding on why companies hire people. I don't hire 15 people to do one job because 15 is a magic number of people I have to hit. I hire 15 people because 14 people weren't keeping up and it was worth more to my business to hire another expensive human to get more work done. So if suddenly 5 people could do the work of 15, because people became 3x more efficient, I'd probably fire 10 people. I no longer need them, because these 5 get the job done. I made the humans more effective, but given that humans are a replacement for humans, I now don't need as many of those because I've replaced them with superhumans instead.

If I'm lucky as a company I could possibly keep the same number of people and do 3x as much business overall, but this assumes all parts of my business, or at least the core part, increases at the same time. If my accounting department becomes 3x as efficient but I still have the same amount of work for them to do because accounting isn't the purpose of my business, then I'm probably going to let go some accountants because they're all sitting around idle most of the time.

It used to be that a gang of 20 people would dig up a hold in the road, but now it's one dude with an excavator.

The second thing is the assumption that AI art is being evaluated as art. We have this notion in our culture that artists all produce only the best novels and screenplays, and all art hangs in a gallery and people look at it and think about what the artist could have meant by this expression, etc. But that's virtually no one in the grand scheme of things. The fact that most people know the names of a handful of "the most famous artists of all time", and it's like 30 people on the whole earth and some of them are dead should mean something.

Most writers write stuff like the text on an ad in a fishing magazine. Or fully internal corporate documents that are only seen by employees of that one company. Most visual artists draw icons for apps that never launch. Or the swoopy background for an article. Or did the book jacket for a book that sells 8 copies at a local tradeshow. If there's a commercial for chips, someone had to write it, someone had to direct it, someone had to storyboard it. And no one put it in a museum and pondered its expression of the human experience. Some people make their whole living on those terrible stock photographs of a diverse set of people all laughing and putting their hands into the middle to show they're a team.

Even if every artist with a name that anyone knows is unaffected by this, that can still represent a massive loss of work for basically all creative professionals.

You touched on some of these things but I think glossed over them too much. AI art may not replace "Art", but virtually no one makes money from "Art", and so it doesn't have to replace it for people to have no job left.