• 0 Posts
  • 18 Comments
Joined 9 months ago
cake
Cake day: October 3rd, 2023

help-circle

  • I do mostly agree. Honestly, I think a lot of people just don’t know how to be concise and effective with less. You could definitely trim down in most cases. But I think extremely long form content is a different type of beast, typically made by very passionate people and made for very passionate people who also like having extreme detail in the content they’re consuming.

    I see it like this: if you’re an extreme fan of deus ex, maybe you hearing someone talk for 3 hours about how good the game is and going into many details of the game is exactly what you want. You don’t watch to learn something new, but just to mutually appreciate the game


  • dlrht@lemm.eetoMemes@lemmy.mlIt's all in the numbers.
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    It’s pretty clear you dont watch long form video content, most of the time they’re quite thoroughly written and well prepared. I haven’t seen long form video content that actually is just pure rambling, they’re pretty generally well structured. I don’t even watch them typically but the effort that goes into them is above just rambling lol, and you can tell they were actually written and scripted… Almost resembling an essay… How strange…





  • No, it’s pretty clear that this is a result of modern “AI”… key word filtering wouldn’t push applicants mentioning basketball/baseball up and softball down, unless HR is explicitly being sexist and classiest/racist like that.

    I mean, the problem has existed for sure before ML & AI was being used, but this is pretty clearly the result of an improperly advised/trained dataset which is very different from key word filtering. I don’t think HR a decade ago was giving/deducting extra points on applicants for resumes for mentioning sports/hobbies irrelevant to the job











  • dlrht@lemm.eeto> Greentext@lemmy.mlAnon breaks his chains
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    That citation abstract very clearly says “could link” prostate cancer and biological processes and “may lower” prostate cancer risk, it’s definitely not as clear cut as you’re making it sound. The paper itself isn’t even confident about the statements it’s making


  • This doesn’t make any sense, who distributes/gives out rights tokens? And if they lose publishing rights, why would the new owner of the publishing rights care about the rights tokens they didn’t sell?

    Blockchain doesn’t fix anything new here, there’s no point in decentralizing the rights ownership, verifying ourselves as owners of the right to watch the media was never the issue here.

    Getting companies to be willing to give out non revokable rights tokens is the issue, and no company wants to do that because it’s not profitable for them. It’s not a technological issue that blockchain is going to solve