Dragonstaff @ Dragonstaff @leminal.space

Posts

0

Comments

401

Joined

9 mo. ago

This doesn't make sense when it's Americans using China's pollution to justify not scaling back our pollution.

I'm not going to say that affecting an accent for a language one doesn't speak is inherently racist....but it can get there pretty fast.

It's pretty accurate to say the wealthy like fascism if you look at how the wealthy keep trying to implement fascism. The Business Plot was an attempted fascist takeover of the United States, and the Trump regime was a successful fascist takeover of the United States. Both were bankrolled by the wealthy.

I'm not interested in defining the word fascist. The word has a definition and if some people use it incorrectly, that is not my concern.

I think when you talk about the "economy" you're not taking into account income inequality. Economic crashes are great for the capitalist class. They get to buy everything at fire sale prices, and pay their workers pennies. Even if they have slightly less "wealth" than they might, they have enormously more power (which locks in more wealth during the "recovery").

We have never ever ever dealt with white supremacy.

We have made some cursory nods towards helping minorities survive in a white supremacist state, but there has not even been a concerted effort to try to end white supremacy.

This is a technology forum. If the article is relevant here at all, it's because of Microsoft. A better argument could probably be made that the article shouldn't be here.

Sounds like you have decent privacy settings. Imagine sharing location data with ChatGPT.

Can you define "compressors" here? (Google was unhelpful.)

If your opponent is cancer and 90 million people shrug and go about their day, you have to wonder what you're doing wrong. And not trying to fix it is downright criminal.

sudo rm -rf / no-preserve-root :3

AI in the hands of moron CEOs is bad. (And they're all morons)

LLMs can be useful in extremely limited circumstances. The problem is that idiots like this are going to use them to replace employees and consumers will receive worse products and services because of it.

The idea of an entire store to sell china is so outdated to be pretty hilarious. Pretty sure the only place I've even seen China is at my Grandmother's house on Thanksgiving.

You don't do everything a picture on the internet tells you to?

At least you can go see the great clown, Paggliacci.

They're called aglets. If you didn't already know that, I'm going to assume you have a life and aren't a gigantic nerd, and hope you still invite me to parties despite occasionally spouting useless information.

The idea of Air Force One being a gift from a foreign government, let alone Qatar, sounds like a horror story spies tell each other around the campfire.

You think ethnic cleansing is new? They're literally talking about how this is very similar to what the Nazis did.

The times are quite precedented. We are looking unfortunately similar to Germany in the lead up to WWII.

Warning: lighthearted yammering about etymology ahead 🤓

The earliest instance of the proverb in its present form seems be from 1898:- "Curious how great minds think alike. My pupil wrote me the same explanation about his non-appearance." [1898 C. G. Robertson Voces Academicae]

The eraliest version of it at all seems to be from 1618 when D. Belchier wrote "Though he made that verse, Those words were made before. Good wits doe jumpe." [1618 D. Belchier Hans Beer-Pot ] ( The word jump used in the sense of ‘agree completely’ or ‘coincide’ is now archaic.)

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/295406/what-is-the-origin-of-the-phrase-great-minds-think-alike

A few years back a list of "real quotes that means something different than people think they do" went around. That contained the "fools seldom differ" line and it seems to have taken off from there. I'm sure it was used earlier, but didn't find an origin.

This is wildly outside of the mainstream interpretation of the first amendment. Whether the law would be upheld by the court is basically a toss up.

During the investigation of child sexual abuse, if the perpetrator is a Catholic, they'll ask if the abuser confessed. If so, the priest is liable to be prosecuted.

Honestly, my biggest problem with the law is how unlikely it is to ever be prosecuted. Proving that an abuser confessed would be impossible. They are infringing on the First Amendment and ensuring that no abuser ever talks to their priest, but in practice priests probably won't follow the law and if they don't the state is unlikely to actually enforce the law.