mpa92643 @ mpa92643 @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

77

Joined

2 yr. ago

Stephen Miller is an advisor to Trump and is probably a psychopath. I don't use that label lightly either.

When a normal person gets genuinely angry, their facial expressions and body language convey the anger too. It's a natural reaction humans have when experiencing emotions and it's tough to hide or fake.

Stephen Miller raises his voice, he uses an indignant tone, he makes aggressive motions with his body, but his face shows no change in expression at all. It's not just this clip either, he's like this all the time. He's generally good at lying and changing topics during normal interviews, but he was cornered here and fell back to "pretend to be angry and change the topic." Clearly this reporter was having none of it.

True, it wouldn't be ethical to conduct an experiment, but we can (and probably do) collect lots of observational data that can provide meaningful insight. People are arrested at all stages of CSAM related offenses from just possession, distribution, solicitation, and active abuse.

While observation and correlations are inherently weaker than experimental data, they can at least provide some insight. For example, "what percentage of those only in possession of artificially generated CSAM for at least one year go on to solicit minors" vs. "real" CSAM.

If it seems that artificial CSAM is associated with a lower rate of solicitation, or if it ends up decreasing overall demand for "real" CSAM, then keeping it legal might provide a real net benefit to society and its most vulnerable even if it's pretty icky.

That said, I have a nagging suspicion that the thing many abusers like most about CSAM is that it's a real person and that the artificial stuff won't do it for them at all. There's also the risk that artificial CSAM reduces the taboo of CSAM and can be an on-ramp to more harmful materials for those with pedophilic tendencies that they otherwise are able to suppress. But it's still way too early to know either way.

I mostly agree with you, but a counterpoint:

Downloading and possession of CSAM seems to be a common first step in a person initiating communication with a minor with the intent to meet up and abuse them. I've read many articles over the years about men getting arrested for trying to meet up with minors, and one thing that shows up pretty often in these articles is the perpetrator admitting to downloading CSAM for years until deciding the fantasy wasn't enough anymore. They become comfortable enough with it that it loses its taboo and they feel emboldened to take the next step.

CSAM possession is illegal because possession directly supports creation, and creation is inherently abusive and exploitative of real people, and generating it from a model that was trained on non-abusive content probably isn't exploitative, but there's a legitimate question as to whether we as a society decide it's associated closely enough with real world harms that it should be banned.

Not an easy question for sure, and it's one that deserves to be answered using empirical data, but I imagine the vast majority of Americans would flatly reject a nuanced view on this issue.

I don't know about firstest, but he was definitely firster. That's why they call him a founding father, not a founding fathest.

It's a definition from a well-respected global standards organization. Can you name a source that would provide a more authoritative definition than the ISO?

There's no universally correct definition for what the ≈ symbol means, and if you write a paper or a proof or whatever, you're welcome to define it to mean whatever you want in that context, but citing a professional standards organization seems like a pretty reliable way to find a commonly-accepted and understood definition.

Sure! See ISO-80000-2

Here's a link: https://cdn.standards.iteh.ai/samples/64973/329519100abd447ea0d49747258d1094/ISO-80000-2-2019.pdf

"Approximately equal" is just a superset of "equal" that also includes values "acceptably close" (using whatever definition you set for acceptable).

Unless you say something like:

a ≈ b ∧ a ≠ b

which implies a is close to b but not exactly equal to b, it's safe to presume that a ≈ b includes the possibility that a = b.

I have a pact with the spiders in my house. If I spot them running across the floor or on the ceiling or tucked away in a corner, they're not bothering me, so I won't bother them. If I see one in an inconvenient place like the dinner table or hanging from the ceiling in the middle of the room, I gently relocate them outdoors.

But...if I'm lying in bed trying to go to sleep and I feel one crawling up my arm, it's broken the pact, and it can't be trusted to leave me alone anymore, so it gets a quick and painless death.

The role of a district court judge is to do two things:

1. Apply existing precedent to individual cases to the greatest extent possible.
2. Set new precedent only when absolutely necessary because the facts of the case don't align well to existing precedent.

Cannon has basically decided to do the exact opposite of these two rules by pretending that the facts of this case are so incredibly unprecedented that she has to throw out the rulebook and set new precedents on everything.

Literally the only unusual thing about this case is that the defendant, a private citizen who currently gets free government security protection for the rest of his life, used to be a president. That's it. Everything else about this case is straightforward obstruction of justice and willful retention of national security information.

Basically, the writers always envisioned Riker and Troi would marry at the end of the series, but Rick Berman overrode them and forced the Worf romance because he wanted to mix things up.

Marina Sirtis and Jonathan Frakes both hated the Worf romance because they felt their characters were basically destined to end up together from the very beginning.

It was never actually explained canonically, but basically everyone hated it except Rick Berman and Michael Dorn and if they married Deanna and Worf in Generations Nemesis (mixed up which movie they got married in), I guarantee it would've led to a lot of very angry fans.

https://screenrant.com/star-trek-next-generation-worf-troi-couple-dating-bad/

https://www.axios.com/2024/01/17/americans-are-actually-pretty-happy-with-their-finances

I get a lot of people are struggling, but you can't claim that the average person isn't doing well when 63% of Americans rate their financial situation as "good" or "very good."

Right wing pundits and politicians:

"How can I frame this as a bad thing?"

the other is still made of people who deserve to live their own lives.

But those "people" (i.e., the clones of Tuvok and Neelix) never existed in the first place.

The main issue in this episode is that two sentient beings were effectively destroyed against their will to create a new sentient being. To rectify the issue of two sentient beings being destroyed to create one new sentient being, the one was destroyed against his will.

But a clone of Tuvix would not come into existence at the expense of any sentient beings besides the original Neelix and Tuvok. It doesn't solve the original "we're killing a sentient being to bring back our friends" problem the original Tuvix caused, but it doesn't create new problems either.

We could just transporter-clone and combine Tuvok and Neelix into Tuvix in one shot. The net effect is one new being, Tuvix, at the expense of nobody. Doing it by cloning Tuvix is just an added intermediate step.

It wouldn't. THC has to be decarboxylated via heating before it has any psychoactive effects.

If you eat an ounce of weed, you'd just get a tummy ache. If you heat up an ounce of weed in the oven just hot enough to decarboxylate the THC before you eat it, you'll be experiencing your tummy ache on an entirely different plane of existence.

Can he swing from a web?

No he can't, he's a pig.

We're not in a recession. Economic growth last quarter was almost 5% (which is massive) and growth has been positive for the last 4 quarters. The average quarterly growth over the last several decades has been closer to 2%.

The economy is doing just fine. Frankly, most people hear their neighbors complain about the economy, so they think the economy is bad, so they complain about the economy, and the result is everyone thinking the economy is terrible when it objectively isn't.

Inflation is relatively high by recent historical standards, but it's really not that high anymore and hasn't been for most of 2023. People got sticker shock during the height of it last year and haven't forgotten. But the labor market is still tight, people who gave up trying to find work a long time ago are entering the market and getting jobs again, wages continue to rise, business investment is up, and small businesses are being created at a historically rapid pace.

When pollsters ask people, "how is your personal financial situation?", most people are answering "good." When those same people are asked, "how do you think everyone else's financial situation is?", they scream "TERRIBLE!" That doesn't mean there aren't people suffering, but things aren't nearly as gloomy as everyone insists they are.

But that's not what TypeScript does. The joke in the meme doesn't really even make sense.

A better analogy would be you have a basket that's explicitly labeled "Fruit" and TypeScript complains if you try to put laundry detergent in it because you said it's supposed to be a basket of fruit.

This meme was clearly made by someone who doesn't use or understand TypeScript.

I prefer just calling everything I eat the flesh of whatever it came from. Tomato? Flesh. Lettuce? Flesh. People? Flesh.

What if you soak them in high fructose corn syrup first?