Anyone can cherry pick reasons one way or the other.

Trump was impeached.

He was found guilty of sexual misconduct (rape).

He was besties with a pedo and there’s plenty of evidence he himself is one.

He attempted to impede a peaceful transfer of power.

She lost to convicted felon and sex pest who was already impeached. It’s the fault of the American people as much as her own, but that’s embarrassing regardless.

Though this doesn’t seem like a valid application of TAS, I’ll bite.

A calculator can do your math homework for you, but that doesn’t mean the homework is useless. It means that if you don’t follow the rules the work is useless. Just because something with no understanding can complete a task doesn’t mean a human with no understanding can. It is built to test a human, not a computer, and it generally does so well enough provided the human is the one doing the work.

I think we’re making the same point. The comment I responded to called it a religious organization and I was making the point that it’s much more than that. Though I tried to add the caveat that even religions that don’t have full blown governments likely have stances on politics and diplomacy.

The Vatican is not a religious organization. It’s a sovereign city-state. It has territory it governs with a government and government positions. Most religions have things to say about diplomacy and politics even if they don’t have a head of state though. The issue is that Trump doesn’t like what the pope has to say.

Isaak was a defense attorney for three of the January 6 Capitol rioters (she later withdrew from two of the cases), and she also helped Alabama Republican Roy Moore dismiss a defamation suit from a woman who said he molested her when she was 14.

What a gem! Glad she’s out there making herself valuable to men. What a horrifying (but worth the read) article.

Oh, for sure. And I really should’ve known better. No offense taken.

Yes, but also I have to draw a line somewhere. I have a daily backup process. Some data is backed up to multiple places. I have backups of my backups. I cannot ensure that all three of the daily backups I run are fully restorable. I would love to know with 100% certainty that they all execute perfectly, but at the end of the day I have to trust the tools and processes I put in place for backups. A yearly checkup is probably more than sufficient for my purposes. I’m sure for certain businesses or sectors they need to be more on top of things, but I could manage just fine if all of it disappeared tomorrow. It wouldn’t be awesome for me, but it’d be manageable.

Not to give myself more credit than I deserve, but I did test them upon setup, and had restored from backup 2 years ago. I didn’t have any ongoing checks other than to ensure a backup happened. I have since instituted yearly checks of the backups themselves, but I did feel dumb when I realized how vulnerable my data was.

Plenty still think it’s flat now so I’d allow it regardless, but most sources suggest <3000 years of people believing this, much less having the math or physics to back it up.

I don’t want to sound like a know it all here because I recently was reminded by a nice Lemmy person to actually TEST my backups, but damn. Every part of that is so dumb. I also have backups stored by a different company in addition to locally storing really important info. If your stuff is hosted and backed up by the same people, what happens if your account is randomly suspended or hacked or some other issue (like ai)?

I think they are suggesting lying to other people (out of shame/embarrassment) not lying to meta. If they are out on a date for example, would they worry that this potential partner would judge them for working at meta and not want to continue with the relationship?

Yea, that shoe company (all birds?) doing a pump and dump by saying they’re going to turn into a compute company really shows a big issue with the market, but also with available resources. I’m sure MS is just managing a lot poorly, but the rate at which they are desperately building data centers regardless of where leads me to believe they need a lot and fast, though I think once they start pricing appropriately they’ll see demand plummet.

I understand where you’re coming from, and I watched the Jessie Gender video posted lower in this thread when it came out initially, but I think the issue is that it’s hard to know if he’s actually an ally. I really don’t love the firing squad analogy, but even so, it takes for granted that he’s an ally. A bunch of people on the right have progressive ideas, they just either don’t care about them as much as they care about their regressive ones, or they don’t see them as “progressive”. They see corruption and they think less regulation will solve that. They see dwindling middle class and they think lower taxes will fix that. He seemed a bit chummy with critical drinker and doesn’t like the politics in Star Trek. He doesn’t seem to understand the underlying politics in his own works. It makes it seem like despite his underlying beliefs, he’s not an actual political ally. I didn’t do any further looking, but from the interview he comes off as a republican despite his works seeming progressive. At the end of the day I don’t think he’s as harmful as JK Rowling, but I don’t see this as a purity test. I see this as a “it’s unclear where you stand” and I think that’s valid because to exist in modern America and not think your art is political makes you stupid or republican and I don’t think he’s stupid. I understand not wanting to support a republican artist and if that’s the assumption people are left with and he doesn’t want to correct it then I think that’s an understandable outcome. I don’t care how well he writes women if he’s not interested in rights being stripped from real women.

Some of them, maybe, but certainly not all. Having all of your questions answered in one place in a conversational tone with something that not only does not ask questions but will often validate fantasies or imagined grievances is way worse. The friction of having to research things is often enough to dissuade people. Obviously getting the exact data is difficult, but there are several suicides that likely would have been prevented without ChatGPT, so I imagine there is a similar effect on murders.

“Drone billboard” is dystopian. I hope anything advertised like this gets a lot of backlash.

Less women are in fields like electrical, plumbing, and construction which are harder to automate and more are in things like customer service and reception. I think she’s just saying things, but I can understand why someone may have said that.

Glad you got out of there and all things considered it seems like your love story is really sweet. Sending lots of positivity your way.

Every dollar spent on wars of aggression signal that my tax dollars aren’t that needed. They can apparently waste billions killing children, which to my knowledge is not a primary function of most governments, so how desperately do they need the money I send? That being said, I agree that in general taxes are needed and the rich don’t pay enough. It just makes me sad to know that although I can afford some changes in taxation, there are families out there that really can’t and the government isn’t tightening its belt in the areas needed and is just making things more expensive. We need less wars and more healthcare and education, yet our president is going around saying the exact opposite. Every person that has died in the war, every person that has died because of ICE, every person that has been stripped of house and food and life because of our military support of other nations is an indictment against the idea that anyone, rich or otherwise, need to pay more in taxes at the moment. I think that really affects people’s perception of how much they really need to be paying.

Yea, and I think some spelling mistakes in the article. Journalist don’t have the support they used to. I wonder if the writer had to source the image as well.

Really sorry that happened to you. I had a relatively similar experience, though I still believe children should have access to the internet as a whole. I had a home life that made the internet a place of refuge and people took advantage of that, but if it wasn’t via the internet it would’ve likely ended up much worse for me. I think part of the problem is what people consider “kids”. I would not give an 8yr old the entire internet, but by 12-13 I’d feel like access should be pretty wide. Mostly unsupervised but in a shared space. They have the freedom to explore, but an adult is around and could theoretically see what they were doing at any time. 14+ and I would still be talking to them about online safety, but not regularly checking in on them while they’re online. 16+ and it’s a free for all imho.

Though I had a lot of negative experiences online, the fact I had access to the whole internet meant I was able to independently explore topics I found interesting and really helped me understand myself better and learn so much about the world I never would have known. I grew up around racist religious republicans and as a queer kid I felt alone and confused. I like to think I would still be a good person without all the exposure to amazing people online, but boxing kids into their local social circle in their formative years just dooms some of them. I shudder to think of the kinds of things my less online cohort were doing. They should be able to see what’s out there. I think restricting children’s access to information because there are awful people online really centers the wrong thing. Basing this wide reaching policy on your experience is unfair and does nothing to address the actual problem. Children need better sex ed. They need to know it’s not “bad” to send nudes, but that the person they’re sending them to is a criminal and that person is the “bad” one. They need to have safe people to talk to. Parents need to have more time to spend with their kids. Laws like this are a bandaid and a bad one at that.