Good comment! (Sorry, not on here a lot)
An important reminder and a good counter example. That said...this is petty and clearly unethical, and also strikes me as quite a different phenomenon from the kind of open corruption we are talking about with the conservative justices.
I'm not sure. It's partly just that Alito is a selfish, lonely, bitter, viciously bigoted person. The progressive justices don't seem to be having a problem following the ethics rules.
Fair enough - I don't have one. At least not to hand. There has been a LOT of reporting about misinformation, disinformation, and fucked up cultural trends unique to TikTok, but I used that phrase hyperbolically to reinforce my actual point: that it is literally impossible to cite sources on TikTok, making it the only social network where credible, knowledgeable, expert, and authoritative creators cannot in principle be distinguished from hoeseshit.
I stopped playing salt and sanctuary because of the platforming, despite being an ardent lover of souls likes.
I really like minor stat boosting items instead. So rather than giving me an inventory full of potions, give me three or four slots for items that can have a huge range of different bonuses and penalties, and they are pretty minor, but they're permanent. That way I get to craft a build instead of just being annoyed
I've been whining to everyone in earshot about all the puzzles in remnant 2 hahaha
Ayyy that person can go eat hog turds alone in a field
You're worthy of respect and as real a woman as anyone alive. Sorry for the shitty Pride experience. There are Pride events that aren't like that, I swear. My local Boston Block Party is mostly weed stores and a killer drag show. Wishing you happier Prides and reciprocated trust in the near future.
If TikTok starts allowing standard hyperlinks it would dramatically reduce the platform's peak harm potential. Tiktok's single biggest problem rn is that it is literally impossible to cite your sources - that's why it's the runaway global leader for misinformation. Adding text would help, bringing it back down to regular Facebook levels of social erosion and election distortion.
The most interesting piece of this for me is that the "gender politics index" is an even stronger predictor of Trumpy support than the "modern sexism index." The gender politics piece is outrage politics - it's culture-war, cult of victimhood stuff with minimal substantive claims attached. And that's what most strongly predicts voting preferences.
What that means to me is that, as with everything that makes the news coming out of high profile republicans, their positions are utterly cynical and calculated to induce fear-based rage voting, rather than a reflection of a sincerely held set of moral and cultural beliefs.
95% of people definitely aren't hetero though. Or anyway, they aren't cisgender and straight and vanilla and mainstream in every other possible way related to sex and gender. We have no idea how many people are queer, but it's a lot more than 5%, and we won't know what the actual numbers are like until there have been several generations that are very queer accepting.
If you want slightly less tactical (but even more fun) turn based combat with a lot more RPG, divinity 2 original sin is phenomenal.
... well, for one thing, your numbers are a little bit off there. The US is sent about $75 billion to Ukraine, not $100 trillion.
The aid check situation sucked, but that was very much a congress problem caused by the most conservative Dems (one of whom has since left the party).
More to the point, I feel confused by your answer: what is it that you don't buy? You genuinely feel there's a moral equivalence across all politicians?
I don't agree. This is a very South Park perspective. Yes, all politicians engage in bribery, corruption, and double dealing. No, the parties are not morally equivalent.
Biden has protected his son, but he has consistently displayed an eagerness to help people and to pass useful, popular laws that save lives and shift money downward in the economic pyramid.
Trump passed a tax cut for people with private jets and GW Bush killed 300,000 innocent civilians. It's insane to pretend there's a moral equivalence here.
I agree that cashing in is at least important part of this. As I understand it, however, past a certain point creating and using LLMs is in fact extremely expensive. That's why GPT4 limits user interactions, for example. I also think that the more restricted these tools are in general, the better for everyone. It's absolutely possible to use them in positive ways, but as it stamps they are mostly just flooding the internet with garbage at killing low level content jobs.
Yeah dude! It can help to watch queer things - maybe try Unhhhh, Ru Paul, or Queer Eye? Just to sort of...help you feel familiar with what you're seeing and hearing. Being aware of queer ideas and spaces and vocab is probably the #1 thing here.
Otherwise, if something like rainbow pins and stickers are too overt, and ditto earrings or nail polish, you could consider just sort of...looking fashionable. Hair and skin, nice shoes, well fitted clothes, color and flair, all of that (at least to me) signifies "I didn't vote for trump and I know what a French tuck is." Obviously not a failsafe metric, but it can help.
It doesn't take a lot to show you're safe, most of the time. Another good option is, if the chance comes up w/o busting into other people's spaces, put yourself out there a little or offer a complement or a supportive remark.
Okay last thing. To really be safe, and be an ally, you may need to confront members of your family who pose a threat/risk to queer people in public. Telling off your homophobic aunt is a GOOD way to show who you are.
Microsoft Word is a bad piece of software that is poorly designed, laughably unoptimized, and mostly dysfunctional. It's like a passenger car with seven wheels arranged in an irregular septagon, a 1 gallon gas tank, and a kitchen stool for a seat.
Also hype clothes are a tremendous waste and reveal the hollowness and meaninglessness that underlies most fashion
A new kind of literary curation will be the defining skill for the next era of human creativity.
This excellent piece from the Atlantic (Drive link to PDF) describes the author's process writing a fully AI novel. He used a ton of different tools, did the plotting himself, and had the AI not just write but revise, change tone, generate alternatives, etc. etc. Then he assembled the final product himself from all those components.
I think this is pretty plausible vision of how writing will be reshaped by AI. Anyone who's messed around with ChatGPT knows that it produces shit content right now. It'll get better, and formulaic tasks will be taken over—the AP apparently uses AI to generate reporting on game results, for instance—but creative work that requires bounded originality seems well outside what it can do, just by its nature. That includes fiction as well as drawing original insights from large or complex bodies of information (e.g. scientific articles, reports, white papers).
Curious what you all make of this—whether it's realistic, what it's missing, what it gets right.
Nanokindled @beehaw.org Queer and masc, in my 30s, content writer. Trying to learn the banjo (twang!). In love with the woods of New England. Lots of D&D and other tabletop.