The main drawback of the scheme is that you're usually voting for a party rather than a person. So, not knowing who any of the people actually fits in pretty well into it.
This is one of the reasons multi-member, proportional districts make sense. Unfortunately, I think that would take a constitutional amendment for the house of representatives.
I think there's a different amount of effort involved in the two scenarios and that does matter. In your example, the kid has already drafted the letter and adding in a parent will make it take longer and involve more effort. I think the assumption is they didn't go to AI with a draft letter but had it spit one out with a much easier to create prompt.
Another problem that only the AI message has is that it doesn't contain information that the receiver wants to know, which is the specific mental state of the sender rather than just the presence of an intent to comfort.
I don't think the recipient wants to know the specific mental state of the sender. Presumably, the person is already dealing with a lot, and it's unlikely they're spending much time wondering what friends not going through it are thinking about. Grief and stress tend to be kind of self-centering that way.
The intent to comfort is the important part. That's why the suggestion of "I don't know what to say, but I'm here for you" can actually be an effective thing to say in these situations.
I am genuinely sorry that you have your identity wrapped up in something people used to insult you. That seems really tough. I didn't say you were too emotional.
It already is a synonym for creepy, grotesque, and ghastly. This isn't a new use. When I pull out my paper thesaurus, that's what's there. It isn't becoming that; it is that.
It's also a synonym for funky and eccentric and quirky and kooky. It's not a word with an inherent judgement unless you think "different" is inherently good or bad.
It is also weird. Weird is a pretty broad and neutral term. It encompasses quirky and creepy.
I find it so odd you're strongly against the concept of normal while so gung ho about keeping weird as a thing. Weird is used just as much for othering.
You're optimistic about it being doable. Maybe if it was put to a vote in each of the states or maybe if it wasn't currently relevant to one party's head. But not put to a vote by the state legislatures. There only needs to be 13 state legislatures that say no to keep it from happening. The last time we passed an amendment was over 30 years ago and was just not allowing congress to give themselves a pay raise in the same term. Not a super contentious thing like presidential immunity when it the previous republican president is facing several criminal trials.
If adults talked about having sex, got drunk, and had sex, I don't think people would generally consider it rape. That one of the people involved was 12 is what makes it absolutely rape and utterly disgusting.
That's generally what's been the proposal when talking about scotus term limits. So when you answered the question of "how does scotus term limits affect impartiality?" it really ought to cover that.
With reasonable, actionable steps. If you don't have those, then they kind of have a point, don't they? It's like the Newton's flaming laser sword of politics.
I think macOS is actually Unix certified. It at least was at one point.