I believe you even though that's kind of sad. I'm not sure which of "they thought this dead animal picture was good" or "they don't have friends to take a better picture" or "it didn't even occur to them to ask a friend to take a picture" are worse.

That could be. I'm not sure how the "many women don't like these pictures" fact didn't override that, though.

When I was on the dating apps I got a friend to take some photos of me in the park

I commented at work that giving the non technical team AI would be like giving toddlers chainsaws.

I got another talking to about making people feel bad.

Bunch of ghouls and whiners here.

Probably similar to how a lot of incels and manosphere duds get advice from other men instead of women. They're in a little bubble. Maybe they don't respect women's opinions.

Once again, you have ignored what I'm saying to argue against something imaginary. You're not worth engaging with.

Headlines starting with like "Trump explodes" give a hope that is immediately dashed upon finishing the sentence

These are mild consequences. I'm sure we can upgrade to moderate, or maybe even memorable consequences.

This is refreshing. I'm so tired of right wing people being like "the government can't do anything right and I'm going to prove it by sabotaging and starving the government".

You can read it for free but you have to sign up (for free). Not sure if there's another word for that. Free-walled? Login-walled?

I recently read "People's History of the United States" and it paints a much grimmer picture of the early US. It didn't take long for the alien and sedition acts to be written, despite the grand language about freedom. There's also many, many, years of labor asking for more than dirt and being violently suppressed.

Friend. The argument isn't "you should judge something by its reputation". The argument is people do that. It is a heuristic or whatever you call that kind of shortcuts.

It is impossible to assess the validity of every source and detail. We rely on trust and reputation and other signals. It's faster, cheaper, and good enough for most things. When your friend you and trust says "I've got some free candy in the van" you probably respond differently than when a blood soaked stranger does.

I'm not saying we should rely on this entirely. I'm simply saying that's a fact of life. People save effort by not critically evaluating everything from first principles when they can just go "my friend recommended it, this Taco place is probably good". It could be a horrible taco place! But it's faster to go by something like in-group recommendations than a full research project.

I feel like I'm repeating myself into the void. Surely you don't all launch extensive research projects for every piece of information and decision that you come across.

This whole damned thread started from someone saying

Criticism is not evaluated by where it comes from, but by whether it’s true or false.

And that's just not how humans act all of the time! Sometimes, often, they don't think through everything. They don't research. They look at the source and go "nah".

You can argue that's bad, and sure it often is. But that doesn't change the fact that that's how people behave.

The courier with 10 int, charisma, luck could probably do a pretty good job.