Excrubulent @ Excrubulent @slrpnk.net

Posts

8

Comments

2,232

Joined

2 yr. ago

I'd suggest that if you think AI porn is anywhere near the real thing, that's probably because you think porn is already slop in the same way that these AI bros think of code or creative writing or whatever other information-based thing you already know AI can't do well.

Porn isn't slop, people aren't just interestingly-shaped slabs of meat. Sex is fundamentally about interpersonal connection. It might be one of the things that LLMs and robots are the worst at.

I think the real answer is that the only people who actually know are the select few astronauts, and their governments are too prudish to ever be open about it, so the astronauts don't want to admit to such "unprofessional" behaviour. I think until space tourism becomes common enough, we'll never know.

Moccasin behaviour, fr.

I don't think tankies are keen on recognising Taiwan. They think it should still be part of China.

“this crazy lesbian feminist said all sex is rape!”

Not all sex, just all the sex in their world. So by saying it was "all sex" they were kind of telling on themselves by agreeing.

I should probably read that book, thanks for that.

This definitely plays into something I've been thinking about lately - in a conservative worldview, all sex is rape, of a woman by a man. Whether it's acceptable to them is all about ownership. Does that man have the right kind of ownership over that that woman? If so, they're fine with it. If not, it's bad.

This is also related to the idea that no woman ever actually wants sex, and no man ever doesn't want it. It's all about when it's allowable for him to overpower her.

Yes, agreed, but "thousand year prohibition" is so specific. Like that must refer to something, and I'm really curious about what.

I assume they have a reference yeah, which is why it's so wild that they just throw it out as if it's common knowledge.

Can anyone explain the phrase "hence thousand year prohibition against it"?

Like, I see the Musk-y tweet style, where apparently articles like "a" and "the" aren't worth your big boy genius brained time, but what is the prohibition? Dude just drops that like everybody knows what he's talking about, but what the actual fuck is he talking about?

God, it's such an arrogant, lazy way of talking, I fucking hate these incel shitheels. They're actually confused why women won't touch them? Jesus.

Turns out that allowing people to choose from a very limited pool of potential rulers every couple of years doesn't actually give them any real power over their society, and maybe it's just a way to delay revolution while the true ruling class gets all the benefits of the old monarchs with almost none of the blowback, because we're all too divided over which potential ruler is less blatantly evil to address the real problems.

It's a very effective method of social control, but it would be a really bad idea for one of the de facto ruling class to try to step into the de jure ruler's office and try to run it for himself like a dictator. That would probably blow up in his face.

They should call it by its proper English name: "corn chip sandwich."

Omg the top comment on that first video:

"I don't even think that girl knew she was being filmed."

Amazing.

Come brother, let us cast our bond deep in the crucible of suffering! Oh what sweet ecstasy; the intoxicating joy of combat!

That's the one! Thanks, that was un-googleable for me.

I guess the road-tyres-on-dirt-bikes thing was maybe a trend when I saw the sub.

I remember finding a motorcycle community on reddit that called themselves "squids" or "squiddies" or something like that.

Their whole thing was putting road tyres on dirtbikes and riding urban environments like they were offroad obstacles. You know, ramping things, except on concrete.

They loved to talk about how dumb & short-lived they were. I couldn't ever find that group again, so maybe I misremembered the "squid" name, but I wanted to find them again, not to ever try it - fuck that - but because the bikes looked super cool. I just have a thing for gender-bent vehicles.

Also, I just want to add: they picked an easily manipulated, disposable kid, and told him to shoot near but not hit Trump? Is that the story you're going with?

Or what, there was no bullet, the injured people in the crowd were actors, they killed that guy later, the photo of the bullet was manipulated, and they just made sure they got to the shooter first to replace the blanks with real rounds?

Your theory either relies on the hypercompetence of a disposable kid to not actually kill Trump, or you're enlisting a lot of extra people who all have to be kept quiet now, forever, all for the sake of a single moment of manufactured drama.

Which one is it? Or is there a secret third option?

I think the special thing about this one is that it's open source and you can build it from common components, which makes sense. You literally just need a stepper or servo motor with the correct algorithm and a few bits & pieces to apply that motor to the dial.

It should be easy enough to build this for no more than a hundred bucks, maybe less if you can get cheap parts or you're building more than one. It's actually less complex than a basic 3d printer.

The expensive part comes from the low volume production and the professional customers. Plus the software is probably proprietary. It takes expertise and to make a business out of that means high individual prices.

So it's really a perfect candidate for open sourcing.

It bled, there are photos of it bleeding. We have all seen it.

A wound like that doesn't need to leave a big scar. Sure, some doctor might have been lying about the "2cm wide wound" but that's not surprising at all. We know they're liars and there will be misinformation around the event, but that doesn't mean the wound didn't exist. Head wounds bleed a lot even if they're very small.

You don't have anything except a tendency to confirm your pre-existing beliefs.

I would explain the lack of ear injury by saying that there was an ear injury.

So your argument rests not on truth but on populism.

Even if you're right in your wholly unsubstantiated claim, the way to get more people on your side is by persuading them, not by capitulating to their ill-informed beliefs. Giving in to their bullshit is how you join their side.

I would love to know what your media diet is.