Value of art is always in the eye of the beholder. If many people see the value, then it receives that from the public.

I would not say AI generated art has the same value as the Mona Lisa per se, quite the contrary. I’m only declaring both as a form of art.

Yes, in the same way a field of corn on a farm can be seen as art. We do not have full control over how it actually looks in the end, but it’s an expression by natural phenomena (sometimes guided or initiated by humans).

You could argue about the amount of free will required to create art. But in that case one could philosophically raise the question if humans even have free will, and if anything may be called art then at all.

I think if something is observed as art, it is by definition art. And perhaps everything that exists and is created could fit that description. But personally one of the more interesting types of art to me are where living beings are involved in the creation, while they’re actually thinking of creating art; and I think most discussions are about that concrete level.

I’d say that open for discussion. Even taking a dump can be seen from the perspective of art, although I agree for us humans it’s quite far out there.

Perhaps to smallen the gap, think of a dung beetle rolling a ball of poo.

I’m not saying you have to like it or even that it’s noteworthy, but art in my opinion as definition can be anything that is created by something. As long as an observer looks at it as if it were art.

You’ve convinced me, your comment is objectively bad art.

I’d say everything is art, just on different levels to different people. Or nothing is art.

96°F = 35.6°C

Chrome went to a :D above 99. But I believe they changed that, not sure as I use FF now too.

I’d say in the first picture he has a fake smile. I like the second one better.

What if it was a form of damage control, where they could claim in the future at lawsuits that they had total transparency at the time of the event.

Please, I’m kidding. But it would be interesting.

I imagine it started with some sub-installations actually giving approximations that were acceptable and summed up, but then some finalizing was not taken into account or something needed to be added after the other processes are finished, and the deadline was close. That last part builds up over time with other quick additions and some annoying stuff that is actually quite performance heavy and not easy to incorporate through the whole installation. “Let’s do it at the end as well.”

No time / budget to change the 100% to 99% as they have to adjust calculations based on the processes that actually do a good job. Although a display change could fake it, priorities are elsewhere.

Sharing ideas can definitely be worth something when it leads to something actual original/concrete/useful, but on another level.

Most ideas these “creatives” come up with are neither of those + they are not willing to put in some effort to solidify the idea themselves.

In contrast, dying but finding that an infinite universe will almost certainly build your atoms back up again in the same configuration in an endless cycle without you knowing… might be more plausible and therefore even scarier to me.

The wiki link states software to be included in the definition. Management is not IT of course, but as there exists management in IT is used in the image I’d guess.

Didn’t read your part for non USians so was searching on the left side of the chart. Still wanted to say thanks though for adding it :p

The point is, laying all these people off with performance as reason protects Cloudflare in not having to pay extra (which would be legally needed if the employee was not at fault).

This is probably not any kind of proof she can use, but it does make people aware of how Cloudflare operates.

It’s understandable companies have to fire people and as an employee you’d probably do best to accept the harsh reality of a business. But if they really communicate fake causes with lay-offs (not only hurting the employee mentally, but also financially bypassing rightful compensation by law), this should be known by the public.

To be fair though, we cannot confirm her statements to be true either. But I think it’s an interesting share nonetheless.

While I agree with your sentiments, for a modern country I see it as a tool to be able to more easily handle international relationships with some countries who still see the importance (like an old handy swiss army knife you have laying around). As long as the monarchy is purely ceremonial and does not affect your own country’s politics.

It should disappear sooner or later though. If it did not have that sneaky, seemingly effective benefit (as I’ve been dumbfounded by in the Netherlands) I’d be all for removing it right away.

Very interesting, thanks! And I’d guess that if it’s like a celebrity who gets mass voted on, without him/her knowing or agreeing and wins, they could easily just say they’re not up to the task, minus peer-pressure. In theory if they’d get all the votes, the elections should be done once more.

But if people insist and again only vote on this celebrity, could that person explicitly upfront claim not to be a valid vote?

Regrettably, I’d say.

What if two people with the same name are sort of politically active (not on ballot) and you write a name down, which one gets the vote?

And what if I come up with a meme to vote for some random person, and people copy that and all vote for someone who unknowingly wins.

I’m interested if they have protocols for these (unlikely, but possible) scenarios.

Interesting, would you still be able to write someone’s name down if it’s not on the ballot? And could that be anyone’s name?