Maybe you’re just picky about guys. It happens. If you do find a guy you really like, then you should go for it

AI overall? Generally pro. LLMs and generative AI, though, I’m “against”, mostly meaning that I think it’s misused.

Not sure what the answer is, tbh. Reigning in corporations would be good.

I do think we as a society need to radically alter our relationship to IP law. Right now we ‘enforce’ IP law in a way that benefits corporations but not individuals. We should either get rid of IP law altogether (which would protect people from corporations abusing the laws) or we should enforce it more strictly, and actually hold corporations accountable for breaking it.

If we fixed that, I think gen AI would be fine. But we aren’t doing that.

In the US? I’d say it’s pretty safe to be a little gender nonconforming unless you’re really out in the sticks. If you were properly nonbinary I would be a little more careful, but still most people will live and let live.

As a trans person, we have a lot more to fear from the federal government than from our neighbors, at least in ~80% of the country.

Judging others by your ability,is neither fair or productive, it is also a recipe for continuous disappointment.

I’m not so much judging them as bemoaning my own loneliness. To be fair, I’ve also done a good amount of judging, but that isn’t what I’m referring to here.

I’m just talking about companionship. Stimulation. Someone to play board games with, or argue about whether water is wet with.

I had a real group of peers in college. I was surrounded by people smarter than me, and it was great. I actually had to work hard to win games against them, had to actually apply myself to avoid failing my classes, and they would actually debate like they knew what they were doing. I miss it.

I find most people boring. Even people who are initially interesting can become boring once I spend a lot of time with them.

Most people also don’t seem to realize just how royally fucked we are (USA). In this case I think ignorance would be bliss, since I can’t do much to make things better.

Bad. Do not recommend.

This has got to be some kind of protest bill. Otherwise, why would it specifically call out ‘use of contraceptives’ as an exception?

Boy do I feel this. Dissociate, panic, dissociate, panic…

I haven’t, but I could maybe see myself doing that

Don’t worry, if my baeic needs are met I’ll happily entertain you for free

Play video games. Bake bread. Learn to code. Create music. Maybe create a game of my own some day. Release it 100% for free because all my needs are met.

… oh, and sex. Lots of sex. But I think that goes without saying

You could go to matrix

I genuinely can’t come up with something worse than the actual news. I see real news stories and think “wow, my anxiety riddled brain has been coming up with ‘worst case scenarios’ for months now, but this? I hadn’t even thought of worrying about that.”

Like I was not expecting to think “Hitler would be a better President.” And for the record, as of a couple months ago I would have said that Hitler was as bad of a leader as any country could possibly have.

But not only is Trump every bit as xenophobic, power hungry, and ‘above the law’ as History’s Worst Person ™ but his administration is also selling off our national forests, dismantling our educational system, and literally defunding the usda and fda.

At least the nazis supported organic farming or whatever. THAT’S NOT A SENTENCE I SHOULD EVER BE ABLE TO SAY. And yet here we are.

The Republican party, ladies and gentlemen. Speedrunning “worst government ever.”

I don’t know Randall, but I expect he would enjoy this.

I think you may be the only commenter who actually read the post.

I understand and sympathize with your point, but unfortunately the law will never be that simple.

To use your example, you walking up to me and saying “hand over your money or I’ll kill you” is not justification to respond with lethal force per se. The missing element here is assault - in other words, I have to believe you both are able and intending to do me harm before I can respond with force. If no reasonable person would believe that what you said was actually a threat (like, for instance, if you were a five year old) then I’m still not justified in harming you in self defense.

Suddenly the lines are super blurry and the slopes are super slippery and its absolutely impossible to tell what a threat of violence is.

Yes. They are. And that was your first example, the one meant to be unequivocally black and white.

The problem here is fundamentally an epistemic one. The law is not a thinking, reasoning being. It is merely a system of procedures. The law does not know - it cannot know - the difference between right and wrong. It only knows what the rules are, and those rules may be wrong.

You might think that there is absolutely no reason to advocate for the mass murder of an entire group of people. And under 99.9% of circumstances, I would agree. But if the zombie apocalypse broke out, I might find myself in favor of killing all of the zombies - and legally, there’s no reason that wouldn’t be genocide.

The law doesn’t know whether zombies are people. It doesn’t know whether or not we are. Therefore, there must be some way to have discussions about the law that are above (or outside the scope of) the law. That’s what politics is, fundamentally: the discussion of the law that’s untouchable by the law. Even if we tried to make certain political stances illegal, we wouldn’t succeed, because that is one area in which the law is necessarily blind.

So we can’t curtail the first amendment.

We can’t execute Nazis.

But we could lynch them, as that would be a political act and not a legal one.

Hard to be the breaking point when it’s already broken. But if it weren’t broken already… then I think it actually might.

What we could do is make “journalist” a protected profession. So just like you can’t call yourself a fiduciary unless you hold to a certain set of ethical guidelines, you wouldn’t be able to call yourself a journalist unless you agree not to lie (among other things). So if you forgo the title of journalist, you can say whatever you want (obviously the other laws still apply, so you still can’t slander or libel, and if spreading misinformation causes harm you can still be liable). But if you are calling yourself a journalist, you voluntarily assume a higher standard for what you are allowed to say.

I think that would avoid any first amendment issues. But I’m not a lawyer, so please don’t take my word for it 🤣

Everyone dies eventually

Yes, that’s technically true, but maybe not in the way you think.

Everyone dies from something. While yes, as you get older it’s harder to overcome things that seemed trivial when you were younger, in theory you could continue living indefinitely until something kills you. It’s just statistically very unlikely.

That is exactly what was on my mind when I wrote the comment.

While I’m tempted to agree, the big problem here is that if the government can decide that some speech is illegal, they can use that to silence people they don’t like.

Obviously the system we’ve got now in the US isn’t working, but we need to tread carefully when giving the government power to decide what is or isn’t the “right beliefs”.