kryptonianCodeMonkey @ kryptonianCodeMonkey @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

1,251

Joined

2 yr. ago

You do realize that the impeachment isn't the goal, right? It's just the first step. If you want to forcibly remove Trump while he's still alive, you only have 2 options. 1) You need Vance and half of Trump's cabinet to formally deem him incapable of executing the powers of the office and replacing him with Vance under the 25th amendment and then (when Trump pushes back) have 2/3rds of both houses of congress vote to agree he's incapable. Or 2) Have a majority of the House vote to impeach him, and then have 2/3rds of he Senate vote to convict, which will result in his removal from office. Impeachment isn't just a formal scolding. That's called a censure. It's an indictment of a crime that will then be tried in the Senate. In both cases of impeachment last time, the spineless Senate voted to acquit. But that doesnt mean that they won't ever break ranks or that in voting to acquit they may lose votes as a result.

No it's a tool, created and used by people. You're not treating the tool like a person. Tools are obviously not subject to laws, can't break laws, etc.. Their usage is subject to laws. If you use a tool to intentionally, knowingly, or negligently do things that would be illegal for you to do without the tool, then that's still illegal. Same for accepting money to give others the privilege of doing those illegal things with your tool without any attempt at moderating said things that you know is happening. You can argue that maybe the law should be more strict with AI usage than with a human if you have a good legal justification for it, but there's really no way to justify being less strict.

It's pretty simple as I see it. You treat AI like a person. A person needs to go through legal channels to consume material, so piracy for AI training is as illegal as it would be for personal consumption. Consuming legally possessed copywritten material for "inspiration" or "study" is also fine for a person, so it is fine for AI training as well. Commercializing derivative works that infringes on copyright is illegal for a person, so it should be illegal for an AI as well. All produced materials, even those inspired by another piece of media, are permissible if not monetized, otherwise they need to be suitably transformative. That line can be hard to draw even when AI is not involved, but that is the legal standard for people, so it should be for AI as well. If I browse through Deviant Art and learn to draw similarly my favorite artists from their publically viewable works, and make a legally distinct cartoon mouse by hand in a style that is similar to someone else's and then I sell prints of that work, that is legal. The same should be the case for AI.

But! Scrutiny for AI should be much stricter given the inherent lack of true transformative creativity. And any AI that has used pirated materials should be penalized either by massive fines or by wiping their training and starting over with legally licensed or purchased or otherwise public domain materials only.

Unfortunately, he's a clinical narcissist, so he really does genuinely have the ability to completely delude himself over his own superiority regardless of all evidence to the contrary. He genuinely believes he's a genius, an intimidating presence, a great deal maker, a popular person with the general public, that he won all 3 elections, and even that he's seen as a sex symbol. He does not live in objective reality in regards to his own attributes, or much else for that matter. It's all delusion. And that's before the dementia started setting in.

The point of the crazy stuff in is so the tax cuts are not the crazy part in that context. They make that the easy target and make the Dems feel like they accomplished something and got some compromise when the GOP really got what they wanted in the end.

It's like keeping a few weapons on you hidden badly so they don't find the ones you hid well. Or when you send a movie to the MPAA for rating that you're afraid will get the movie-killing NC-17 rating, so you intentionally seed the movie with even more gratuitous sex and violence so that you have something to cut to compromise with the MPAA and you end up with the movie and the rating you wanted in the first place.

Fun fact: If you've ever seen Sausage Party, that's what the super long vulgar sex scene at the end was supposed to be. It was bait for the MPAA's complaints so they could cut it to get the R rating they wanted. But the MPAA only came back with a single complaint, the Pita Bread's (I believe?) pubic hair on his scrotum. So Seth Rogan said... "Oooookay!" Removed the pubes and released the movie with the rest of the sex scene intact. Cuz when are you ever going to have that chance again?

He really thinks this cognitive test he took is an IQ test or in any way measures intelligence doesn't he? It checks for signs of dementia. It doesn't have anything on it that is complicated, measures knowledge or critical thinking skills. It's basic association, memory, and recognition testing. A neurotypical 6 year old can do it.

"Mission Accomplished"

Starting a conversation with a stranger is usually unwise

Starting a conversation with a stranger by calling a kid ugly is usually unwise. Doubly so when the person you are talking to is the only other adult and possible parent in the vicinity. Triply so when you are grown adult man sitting alone in a park assigning beauty standards to kids. But yes, it is the baby with an overbite and his mother with alternative style that are the weird ones, sure.

Don't forget about fidget apps, so throw in some bubble wrap too.

TBF, the stereo speakers probably sound better and are certainly capable of being much louder than my phone speakers. But yeah, miles better in every other capacity.

More than that, giving food and drink to the hungry and thirsty, welcoming strangers, clothing the naked, caring for the sick, and giving comfort to the imprisoned, is literally the same as doing those things for Jesus Christ, himself, from his perspective. And, moreover, those who do those things will earn their place in heaven, and those who fail to do those things will be eternally damned to hell. It's not subtextual. It's not ambiguous and up for interpretation. It says very clearly that Jesus separated those who are going to heaven and hell to either side and the distinction between the groups was how they treated "the least" of his brothers and sisters. Matthew 25:31-46.

So, bad news Christian Republicans. Might want to correct yourself now before it's too late.

Robot. Always robot. And music is too loud now.

No, the reason was Reds protecting their guy and refusing to hold him to account. Even if what you suggested were part of their motivation, the optics of Trump refusing accountability and literally being dragged out, hasn't been paying attention to the optics that Trump himself brings to the US and the GOP, specifically. It's a pretty shit justification.

Let's call them prison sentences and I agree.

Conservatives didnt help end slavery though. The Republicans at the time were not the conservative party. They were progressive relative to the Democrats of the time. Their was a ideological shift in the middle 20th century that swapped the party ideologies. Republicans today would have been Democrats back then and vice versa. They are claiming Republican victories of the past because they are technically they same party, but they in no way, shape, or form the same party ideologically, just the same name. It's the ship of Theseus in policitical party form.

Because they are racists but they hate when you correctly point that out, so they claim responsibility for ending slavery because they think that will make them immune to criticism of their current racism.

They US just kept the name the discoverer wanted instead of giving into those British asshats that just wanted to troll Sir Davy.

It probably wasnt really a willful defiance thing. It's likely more correct to say that we kept the name because by the time they changed it officially in Europe, we had millions of students across the country that had textbooks with the name Aluminum in it, that had already been taught the original name, and if the inconsistentcy was even important enought to consider "correcting", it was likely deemed too costly and too much of a headache to change at the time. By the time people were buying reprints/new editions/more recently written textbooks anyway, professional chemists in the US had been calling it Aluminum for years. Given how isolated we were from Europe in the early 1800s, there was very little pressure to align with them on it, and so it stayed. The longer it stayed the more likely it was to be permanent, and here we are.

But yeah, Sir Humphrey Davy was an indecisive wishy-washy namer of elements, disseminated multiple names across the world, but somehow that is our fault when we just stuck with the one we were given and everyone else changed over nitpicky conventions. It's not the only thing that Brits shit on about American English that is entirely their invention or their mistake:

• "Soccer" being a British term short for "Association Football"
• The season "Fall" being a British term shortened from the phrase "The Fall of the Leaf" and directly complementary to "Spring" which comes from the phrase "The Spring of the Leaf", which they still use despite making fun of Americans for "Fall" instead of their "Autumn", which Americans also use.
• "Dove" instead of "dived", "pled" instead of "pleaded", "have gotten" instead of "have got", etc. all started in Britain but were dropped there and stayed in the US.
• "Herb" being pronounced with an audible "h". The word is borrowed from French, where the h is silent, exactly like , "honorary", and "honesty". Neither country pronounces either of those words with an "h" sound, but that doesnt stop people like Eddie Izzard shitting on how Americans say it with a silent "h" despite the American pronunciation being, arguably, more correct given the word's origins.

Side note, it is crazy how many words in English are borrowed from French, even if they are horribly mangled and unrecognizable now in a lot of cases. The British Aristocracy really had their noses shoved firmly up French asses for a lot of their history in the last few centuries.

Probably three reasons:

1. They have a lot of synthetic dyes on hand that they do not wish to waste.
2. They have to secure and arrange new reliable supply chains for the natural dyes and probably arrange new processes for storing and using the dyes as they will not be 1:1 with the synthetics.
3. They may want to transition slowly, maybe product testing in specific areas to see how consumers react to the new look, taste (because natural dyes usually affect that), and labeling, and adjusting accordingly before rolling out to the whole counry/world.

That dye has never stopped being used, you know. You have almost certainly been eating food with this dye for your entire life. You likely have products in your home with this dye in it right now. Red candies, red velvet cake, red drinks, strawberry or raspberry yogurts, maraschino cherries, ice creams, some sausages or faux crab meat, too. It is a very common dye.

When it became big news a few years back, the main problem was not that it is made from bugs. The problem was that it was being used in ostensibly vegan products, making it not actually vegan. The big target at the time was Starbucks for their pink drink (I believe). But most companies didnt ever change anything.

In reality, synthetic dyes are likely nowhere near as much of a health risk as the sugars and salts in these products anyway. But anything that can be done to incrementally improve the healthiness of product, it's still progress. And at least people can read the label and make informed decisions about the nutritional value of the salt, fat, sugar, etc. in their food. But the actual risks of other ingredients, like dyes, preservatives, and artificial sweeteners, are far less apparent to the typical shopper, even if they are largely minimal in risks, if the actual risks are even known in the first place, that is.