Oh I see.
It would have been nice to have that in the post description for those of us who aren't as willing to hand over data (even anonymized) for certain uses.
Thanks for locating it!
harmonea
joined 1 year ago
What's the purpose of your research? Curiosity? A student thesis? A professional paper? Are you a dev actively working on improving the fediverse?
Okay but seriously, what is this pedantry even? I wasn't trying to put forth some all-encompassing thesis of every reason people might pirate, nor do I accept that "needs to be in on all the current memes" is some reason one is entitled to media. And neither point has anything to do with the discussion we're having with OP.
Bizarre as heck tangent.
Your comparison is still really, really unclear. Are you comparing the consumption of "extra products" for vegans vs vegetarians to the consumption of "extra products" for piracy?
If so: Do you really not understand that limited physical demand differs from unlimited digital demand? If a vegetarian eats, idk, an egg a day.... that's an extra 365 eggs that had to be produced and were paid for, thus supporting the industry, when you could have hypothetically decreased demand and possibly caused a drop in production. Whereas the media consumed by pirates incur neither profit nor cost (in that if we assume they would never have paid for those goods in the first place, it isn't a lost sale). There is no production cost for there to be 1 sold copy and 1 pirated copy vs 1 sold copy only.
Though tbh, I'm just devil's advocating the vegan position here. I really think you had a handful of bad encounters with militant vegans and assume the majority of the threadiverse thinks like that. And, well... we don't? What even is this "lemmy culture"? The amount of confusion and responses that aren't addressing the point you meant to make should show you that most of us are not engaging with this on the line of thought you assumed we would.
Hey man, I'm willing to be honest about what I do. I'm not entitled to consume that media just because it exists, and I'm not going to beat around the bush about that.
I haven't looked into the benefits of electroshock with BPD, but I'd recommend taking a look at Dr. Daniel Fox's workbook for an at-home DBT/attachment theory foucsed program. BPD is one of the few PDs that has been provably shown to be able to change. If you have $30 or so to spare, it can't hurt.
It's a slow and difficult process, but yes. There are certain personality disorders that can be provably put into "remission," and if people with conditions that severe can change their personalities, anyone can.
You have to learn how you've been conditioned to think and feel the way you do, and get a lot of self-discipline re: stopping to notice your feelings, figure out why they're arising, think through the consequences of acting on them, and choosing a better way.
I hate to use terms like this since they're so often the territory of conspiracy nutjobs, but you're basically deprogramming yourself. For example, a sensitive person who's been exposed to a lot of bullying might have learned some pretty intense defensive reaction, so you'd have to stop every time you think "what did he mean by that?" and think of why that's your first reaction, then choose to believe the best possible meaning even though your feelings scream at you not to. And you'd maybe keep a journal to remind yourself of all the times you were right to assume the best, since a defensive mind discards the positive and overemphasizes the negative.
This sort of thing is best accomplished with the aid of a mental health professional, but there are workbooks you can get if that's out of cost/feasibility reach for you. You'd need to know your deal to know which ones to focus on.
I don't really understand why you're comparing these two things? One is a group of people refraining from consumption of certain goods for personal reasons - health, ethics, climate impact, whatever. The other is a group of people consuming arguably more goods than they (we tbh) deserve since we're not willing or able to pay for it for one reason or another.
A better analogy would be comparing piracy to... I don't know, a veg-eater of whatever type who still enjoys the taste of bacon and resorts to stealing it because it's better to hurt the meat industry than to pay? It's a product that person really doesn't really need and absolutely would have never paid for, yet the person still wants it and obtains it in a way that hurts the industry.
(The analogy doesn't hold up since stealing physical goods has a different impact than distributing digital copies, but it's the best I've got off the cuff)
E: okay, after reading your other comments, I'm both confident this didn't address the point you wanted and confident I don't really understand your deal well enough to do so. Both of these groups have some members who have a problem with industry practices and others who are into their chosen lifestyle for other reasons. It seems like you've made some odd decisions about which groups are most prevalent among each and are framing your premise around that, and I don't think we're going to see eye-to-eye on it when the premise is Like This.
How does the change do nothing to combat those interactions when they fall under the $1 sub requirement? The idea is that allegedly bots won't pay, so they won't be able to do those actions anymore.
The hilarious part is that hoyo is constantly pushing the boundaries of what can be done with live2d; it's heavily used in Genshin character teasers, and their otome game uses it extensively. They're really good at this. Why get AI involved?