Man mowing lawn on ad: haha how stereotypical gender roles, these people were so backwards
Woman mowing lawn on ad: haha lazy husband wants only to smoke and drink (probably is abusive too)
I see two people smiling and a lady riding awesome lawn-mobile I’d like to have too.
On the opposite - version 8 is great.
The example you gave is a bit unfortunate - the word “Nazi” totally lost it’s meaning and the scope is ever increasing - it’s not more “bad/evil” nowadays. It’s like people forgot another words when disagreeing with someone. It could be you being banned as “nazi” some day and some chump will (mis)quote the paradox of tolerance in comments and pat themselves at the back for all the upvotes :D After all, nobody likes Nazis, right?
Man, I feel the same.
Birds aren’t real. Now trees aren’t real too.
Google is full of bullshit info too - what’s the big deal?
You can select it yourself on registration in some instances. Probably running some automation from that acc.
TBH I prefer this approach to what OpenAI is presenting - if I prompt to present the benefits of X I want the result not openai’s opinion on the matter. Sure, you can add a disclaimer that it’s hypothetical, wrong, whatnot - but not outright decide on what can you answer and what answer will not be provided.
ChatGPT is notoriously bad in “knowing better what you asked than yourself”.
Thank you for explaining - I honestly wouldn’t have guessed - I was searching for the chinese connection in the article :D
It’s very dependent on the region. Where I live hotels either have nothing or both Christian bible and The Book of Mormon (with huge majority having nothing - just two chains having anything). IMO this is not an example of Christian privilege.
c/Unexpected40K (huh, we miss that one)
What…the… Why?
Damn it, my client crashed twice when typing here and I don’t have the heart to retype my longish answer again.
I’ll be brief, sorry
my bad, I was typing examples of how introducing law deemed radical would have negative consequences and backlash from general populace, showing how politicians use tactics to not scare the public (e.g. distraction with 9/11 to introduce more spicy parts of patriot act or sloooow meddling with electoral rules and districts so that the voter gets bored) - I diverged to general world, this is about academia and higher ed, you’re right. Even more radical stuff could be introduced here as more vocal opposing groups simply don’t care and most conservatives treat higher ed as a lost cause of sorts
Your friends and even you yourself prepare constantly for the world that is not real - what you deem “real” it just your interpretation of what happened - which in most cases is not even correct (as you rarely know everything about other people, economy, or anything that’s happening). This image is nonsense. Elders’ advice can be good as well as advice of someone your age might be shitty.
Just think for yourself.
Thank you for an in-depth answer!
About lack of possibility to accommodate both pro-life and pro-choice: so to sum it up your stance is to force them out from academia? Pro-life believe abortion is murder - argument about “equitable society” is unlikely to convince somebody that it’s okay to kill in the name of it. At the same time same person can be all in for inclusion, diversity etc. Isn’t this the perfect example of perfect being enemy of good? Radicalization is going to make this and similar groups naturally fall into opposition if you keep forcing them out (and generate a lot of “martyrs” for the cause too). How is radicalization good here?
About compromise: I’d quote you my brother’s law professor:”What is the purpose of the law system? Justice? No! It’s to maintain the order, the system which makes everything work. It is to ensure predictability.” So are the compromises on eg. bodily autonomy morally justifiable from any perspective? No, both sides hate it. Both sides have politicians that want to be as realistic as possible to sway voters, change being just a side effect of the process.
I think what you propose (being more radical) is actually already slowly being implemented (again, by both sides) - problem is if both went with full on “we’re sure we’re right, we’ll make no step back” there would be a revolution or a civil war (no step back means also rapidly escalating reactions from opponents) and no one really wants that in political establishment or… any establishment really. Revolutions usually end in big changes one way or the other and if you’re already in establishment why risk it?
Thanks for sharing, I’ll check out XMPP too - last time I checked was 10 years ago :D probably a lot has changed
Alright, doesn’t mean it didn’t lower your attention span. Just that you’re less bored :D
I see you wrote that you’re thinking about making it FOSS. What’s the alternative? Paid software/non-free license + Open Source or proprietary? If you’re low on time and don’t have the capacity to maintain (bugfixes/reports from users) yourself then I say proprietary is a no-go. Then about the license - IMO (though I don’t have hard data on that on hand) people much more likely contribute to FOSS as opposed to locked in license + open source model.