aidan @ aidan @lemmy.world

Posts

21

Comments

1,970

Joined

2 yr. ago

Moderating

---

That's untrue, but they are wrong, in both places are known for deep dish pizza.

I understand why Europeans don't like pineapple pizza, for some reason all the restaurants here put it on after baking. Genuinely insane

With what you said 1. Someone doesn't have to be a good person, or be right, to coexist. Sitting at the same table as Pol Pot or Hitler isn't enabling them.

In my former school district they paid a ton to some consultancy firm to "use AI to optimize the bus route". The first day of testing the new route many kids didn't get home until after 9pm. They cancelled school for the rest of the week and then immediately reverted to the old route.

Maybe the best headline that's come out of the recent LLM explosion

Nah that's just it, it's pizza stuff in the form of a casserole

Except it's called pizza and looks like pizza so it's in the form of pizza.

Unless you just mean "thick bread crust" then sure but that isn't deep dish, real deep dish is like a bread bowl casserole.

Detroit style deep dish is also deep dish, but yeah not Chicago style deep dish

Its pizza because it takes the form of pizza and is called pizza

Some American frozen pizzas can be good, but at least in Poland/Czech Republic almost none of it is.

TBH compared to the rest of SEA Vietnamese food is often relatively mild

Which is crazy because pizza I'm Norway is not that good

Especially sucks for people with jaw problems who can't open their mouth that wide. But you're totally wrong about deep dish pizza

There is not a single country on this planet that has no legal consequences for free speech

Yes.

it would be ridiculous to claim that should be the standard.

I mean, that's what freedom of speech is. Otherwise its entirely meaningless.

For one, and I feel kind of pedantic for pointing this out, but that kind of policy would preclude any obviously consequential statements made in court proceedings, for example pleading “guilty”, lying under oath,

The consequence there would be essentially signing a contract for honesty, and breaking it. Similar to how you can choose to give up an organ, but you can't force someone to give up an organ. You chose to sign away your freedom of speech in that instance. Now subpoenas I think there is a compelling argument they are a violation of freedom of speech.

Less pedantically, even in a version of the US where their so-far mythical conception of free speech was actually achieved, legal consequences are assigned to direct, material threats and attempts to cause panic.

The US does not and has never had freedom of speech. This was blatant from at least 1798. I do think the US is marginally closer than most other countries.

You’d be pretty hard pressed to claim these exceptions are unreasonable,

Its not about whether it is reasonable. It is whether it is factually true to call a regime in which speech is controlled as having freedom of speech.

the United States has pursued this exact policy and it has lead to little more than them being one of the leading contemporary examples of how an advanced democracy and economy falls into fascism and mass disenfranchisement.

That is not at all a clear cause and effect.

No one claims that you have an absolute freedom to wave your hands

Ok?

Probably

But people act violently without it, I don't think the rhetoric is a necessary precursor. Furthermore, practicality is not what defines freedom of speech.

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I am saying if there is a law establishing legal consequences for speech then you do not have absolute freedom of speech.

If you have legal consequences for speech, you don't have free speech

True, but sadly that's because of what became a genuine user safety concern

Anyone know Al Gore's email?