That’s what i am saying. You need to learn it. If someone explains it to you, then you are learning. If someone gives you the answer, then you dont understand it, so you are less good at said something.

You agree with me…

Because AI and previously google searches are not a substitute for having knowledge and experience. You can learn by googling something and reading about how something works so you can figure out answers for yourself. But googling for answers will not teach you much. Even if it solves a problem, you won’t learn how. And won’t be able to fix something in the future without googling th answer again.

If you dont learn how to do something, you won’t be experienced enough to know when you are doing it wrong.

I use google to give me answers all the time when im problem solving. But i have to spend a lot more time after the fact to learn why what i did fixed the problem.

That’ll do it 😀

Depemds if you are logged i to google services on your phone and on you pc browser. If you log into anything google on your browser it retains that log in across all the apps

The trough of disillusionment sounds like my former depression. The slope of enlightenment sounds like a really frun water slide.

So what you are saying is, it’s just as Risc-E

I love this

Its very socialist. So i like it.

Yes, i said that, that one point was more about making it cost less so its affordable.

What’s the endgame here for users?

Do we just want a reasonable subscription price? Something we can genuinely afford?

If youtube doesn’t play ads then they cant remain a service. At least not as it is today. Hosting costs money.

Im not shilling for them, i dont want ads either. And google are a terrible company. But im trying to be realistic.

Do we want cheap subscription?

Or a reduced service that can be maintained without so many ads

Do we just want 5 second skippable ads back?

Im just seeing this fight progressing to the point were youtube becomes subscription only and the ad blocker users have to pay or lose the service they obviously want to access.

Margerine is made from unsaturated fats, though. So it’s not the same. Is it?

I dont think it’s unique to the US, companies in other countries have to play the same game or be lost to obscurity.

Why dont these companies accept theybarent worth as much any more and just provide less services until they balance off.

The stuff they cant afford to provide could be taken on by someone else. Being a one company does all type master of none sort of thing is clearly bad for society and the economy.

I dont really know what im talking about but i just dont get why they see losses and an end to growth but take the position of “we need to find a way to keep this going” instead of “we need to sell off things until our company is making money again, even if its less money”

I dont know if i can keep using google stuff if this is the way they are going.

Why does everything have to be a fucking advert.

Who even likes adverts?

Just fuck off.

Tbh i dont think the downvote button should reduce the visibility of a comment. Downvotes should just show the general consensus. They shouldn’t mask discorse. If people have different opinions, then they should be visible. The up and downvotes will tell readers what most people in a given community think about a particular opinion, which should be enough to shape the opinions of those on the fence or less in the know. but maintaining the visibility of the comments stops a valid point from being buried by a smaller but more vocal minority.

If we shape our opinions only by what ends up on top on any given day based on who happened to be browsing at that time then we may end up censoring good points. All sides should be considered or opinions become narrow and nobody will consider anything other than what they are told to.

Its only been a year?

If its their opinion, then it is subjective. You can’t have an opinion on something’s objectivity.

I could have an opinion of how much i like an objective fact, but i can’t dispute it being a fact.

Read some of rhe conversation that followed between them and myself if you want proof.

They are trying to argue that their opinion is an objective fact. When it is, in fact, objectively their opinion.

Maybe if they had said , “i think its shit,” instead of saying “its shit” and then spending multiple days arguing with me that their opinion is objective fact, then there wouldn’t be a problem.

How do we determine which is “good” art and which is “bad” art? Is it all based on the skill of the artist? Their mastery of techniques? Their creative use of different styles? Maybe their method of combining elements from multiple styles?

Or do we look at which art invokes the strongest emotional response? Which art make people feel the most happy or sad, or strikes them with awe and wonder. Art which leaves people staring at it for hours, always finding something new to enjoy about it?

Who decides which of these factors are the best or which ones make the art “good” or “bad”?

The answer is the individual.

I realised this a long time ago when I think about it in terms of music.

Im a musician, and as i grew and learned more about it, i began to hold a very elitist view on what merited “good” music and what was “bad”

I was certain about this. It made sense. It was clear in my head.

The good music is the stuff that is technically superior, the music that makes my jaw drop at its complexity and its craftsmanship. I outright rejected pop music and most basic music.

But i realised that when it comes down to it, good music is different for everyone. When i saw people dancing away and enjoying themselves, feeling elation whilst listening to so.ething i deemed terrible and basic, i realised. They are having as much fun as i do when i listen to the complex stuff. They are getting the same thing as me, except they get to dance and bounce around too, which, if anything, puts them above me on enjoyment levels.

I now find im able to appreciate the “dumb” music as much as the “smart” music and hold both in high regard. Because whilst i might be able to listen to and appreciate the likes of schubert, mozart, chopin, rachmaninov or jacob collier, louis cole, miles davis or herbie hancock. Muse, radiohead, the beatles etc Now i can listen to and enjoy pop artists like dua lipa, billie eilish and the like.

I know which i like more, but letting go of that gate keeping mentalility was exceptionally freeing. I recommend you do the same. Calling people dumb is not a good take. Accepting people differences and making them your equal is a much brighter path.

Art is inherently subjective, and what is considered “good” or “bad” varies from person to person. While there are commonly accepted principles and techniques in art, such as composition and colour theory, the interpretation and emotional response to art are highly personal. What one person sees as a masterpiece, another may see as unimpressive. So, art is not objectively good or bad; it’s a matter of individual taste and perception

I would say i have expressed my point poorly in the text you quoted. Where use “good”, im using quotation marks to mean this is not objective. It’s the opinion of the majority of people.

So where you say art has to fulfil higher standards and you can tell how creative or original a work of art is , that’s just the general consensus of “good,” but it’s all based on opinion.

Even if 99% of people agreed something is “good,” it is still subjective and, therefore, not objective fact.

An objective fact would be something like “the earth is (roughly) a sphere” even though there are flat eathers out there who would disagree, they are objectively wrong as it can be measured and proven and doesnt change based on who measures it. Unlike art, which will look different to each person viewing/experiencing it.

To go back to the original point again.

You said everything on disney+ is shit. Putting aside that you admitted in other comments that you dont actually believe that. It is your opinion and not objective fact. Like i said right at the start of this whole debate, everyone like different things.

To speak on the bubble thing again. I would say that my use of the term is a bit loose but not inaccurate. Your refusal to accept the differences between subjectivity and objectivity, as well as your belief that art can be seen objectively can be described as you living in a bubble. In that you are rejecting the information i am giving as it doesnt align with your view on the matter.

Maybe that bubble only surrounds this one aspect of your person, and not the whole, but you are being very stubborn about something that is entirely subjective in claiming there can be any objectivity.

So not a perfect usage of the term but not an invalid one. Subjectively speaking.