ALoafOfBread

joined 2 years ago
[–] ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I guess, if they answer "No" or "Your simple rebuttal has made me realize the problem of free will is nbd actually".

But if they say "Yes. It does matter." Then suddenly it isn't defeated and you'd need to provide a compelling argument for it not mattering, which would make for good conversation.

[–] ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Add another one for the ugly fucking tailoring job on that suit.

[–] ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago

True that. Our tax dollars could be spent much more effectively if our government was more focused on the wellfare of its people.

[–] ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

It could be less doomsday, but not in any way they'd show in a propaganda movie.

  1. reform copyright law to have shorter windows where stuff is out of the public domain

  2. create a public AI R&D agency, prevent and criminalize the private development of AI on any non-public domain assets

  3. train the public AI on only public domain assets and release it freely to the public for non-commercial use (to run locally and on publicly funded data centers).

  4. Grant commercial licenses to businesses. But require majority employee approval (democratically) for any use of AI that would take existing human jobs - would ideally lead to employee buyouts, re-skilling into new jobs, etc.

  5. for any licensed profession (lawyers, doctors, engineers in some places, etc) make it so the full burden of any mistake made due to negligent AI use rests on the individual. Like how lawyers keep submitting bad documents to the courts - citing fake cases that AI made up, etc.: they should potentially be disbarred.

[–] ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

You get other benefits though. Like the few social safety nets we actually have, public school funding, social security (unless it runs out/gets cut), fire departments, regulatory agencies that keep your food, water, and drugs safe. Etc. It costs a lot of money to have a society. Even if you don't directly benefit from them, they still make society less shit.

That said, it'd cost a lot less if we didn't spend so much of it murdering children.

[–] ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

Oh I'm just... a ... regular type dude >!... with a big-ass dick!<

[–] ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml 19 points 2 months ago (3 children)

I only watched the first season (big fan of the books as a kid). Imo, it is not worth your time. They took out what makes WoT special and produced some extremely generic, bland fantasy.

[–] ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Depends on your goals. I'd say learn the one you have the most use for. If you don't have a use and are just learning for fun, then pick the most interesting one. If you're learning intending to acquire the language as quickly as possible, then either Italian or French would be good choices.

I am learning Chinese (mandarin, aka 汉语, aka 普通话) and I personally find it very logical, interesting, and fun as a native english speaker who used to be conversationally fluent in Spanish. There are definite difficulties with the language (soooooo many homonyms, characters (汉子) take some getting used to, tones, etc) but if you learn it, there is a lot of reading material and media that will become accessible to you. Additionally some things about it are easier than other languages - like the grammar is very simple, you don't have to worry about conjugations and tenses as much. Also, I think that it provides more cognitive benefits because of how different it is to romance languages.

汉语是很酷。我推荐你!

[–] ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml 35 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Except, since each vote toward good/rotten is binary, it really means that a high score is not "best" but is instead "least objectionable"

[–] ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml 16 points 2 months ago (1 children)

0420 6942 0694 2069 4/20 069

[–] ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml 19 points 2 months ago

It's illegal unless there's a bonafide occupational qualification that your disability prevents you from performing. Like you couldn't apply for a job as a furniture mover if you're a quadriplegic and cry discrimination when they don't select you. And the employer can ask things like "this job requires that you lift heavy objects of up to 600lbs with the assistance of another person and a back brace. Do you have any medical or other reason you could not perform these duties?".

Now if that weren't a real occupational qualification, that'd be discriminatory. Like if they said you had to be a man for that moving job - there's no reason you have to be a man, you just have to be able to move 600lb things.

[–] ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml 28 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Airports are infrastructure buildings. This is like seeing a billboard telling you not to hatecrime gay people and boycotting the highway.

view more: ‹ prev next ›