peanuts4life

Isn't this whole thing a bit performative? I mean, dogs aren't inherently more worthy of liberation from the meat market than any other farm animal.

I just dump a liter of bleach in the upper deck and remove the seat. Nothing cleans you up better than a good swirl.

It's really concerning how many comments are snidly dismissive or in some cases outright hostile to this particular peice of reporting.

Does Hamas deny that the hostages were kidnapped or mistreated? Are the circumstances of these particular people's capture suspect? Are thier experiences disputed?

I see no comments even attempting to say so. It reads as wantonly jingoistic.

"our fake history" is a pretty good match to what you're describing. It's a relatively light hearted, rigorously researched, history podcast with a focus on misunderstood historical figures and events.

"The plastic plesiosaur podcast" is a really fun podcast more focused on cryptids and pop science.

One of the host to plastic plesiosaur has a YouTube channel called "trey the explainer" which is worth a watch.

And if you like low key, entertaining deep dives into machining or tech, check out "technology connections," "this old Tony," and "tech moan."

Imo, the true fallacy of using AI for journalism or general text, lies not so much in generative AI's fundamental unreliability, but rather it's existence as an affordable service.

Why would I want to parse through AI generated text on times.com, when for free, I could speak to some of the most advanced AI on bing.com or openai's chat GPT or Google bard or a meta product. These, after all, are the back ends that most journalistic or general written content websites are using to generate text.

To be clear, I ask why not cut out the middleman if they're just serving me AI content.

I use AI products frequently, and I think they have quite a bit of value. However, when I want new accurate information on current developments, or really anything more reliable or deeper than a Wikipedia article, I turn exclusively to human sources.

The only justification a service has for serving me generated AI text, is perhaps the promise that they have a custom trained model with highly specific training data. I can imagine, for example, weather.com developing highly specific specialized AI models which tie into an in-house llm and provide me with up-to-date and accurate weather information. The question I would have in that case would be why am I reading an article rather than just being given access to the llm for a nominal fee? At some point, they are not no longer a regular website, they are a vendor for a in-house AI.

I get what you are meaning to say, that secondary sexual characteristics dictate certain trends and limits. I agree.

However, what I find interesting is that historically, the bulk of manual labor was done by the lowest class cultures. It depends on the time and place, but indentured servants, slaves, and women of the household were expected to do most of the labor. These decisions were not made on the merits of absolute physical strength, but rather by ones social status.

In fact, the strongest men. Those with the most physical apitude and power, tended to enjoy leisure at the expense of these lower classes. Including thier women.

The idea that strong men make strong countries, or do the best work, is a myth. Typically, wealth is built by poor men, women, and subjugated social classes, and the mythical status of the strong man gender stereotype serves to justify this arrangement.

So yes, the strongest biological male human will probably always outlift the strongest biological female, but the actual outcomes of who does the work is decided by gender, and historically, the labor fell on the woman. See what I mean about gender being, "bad?"

But these traits are secondary and tertiary sexual characteristics (ie they are tied to your biological sex). They are certainly the origin of gender identity, but they don't justify it. My dissatisfaction is not with the concept of sex. It's fair to say, "oh that person has a penis, that person is a woman, that person is intersex," and we should strive to develop better, more diverse sexual classifies, but gender? Na.

Gender roles/ jobs, fem and masculine, the separation of media to cater towards one gender or the other, the gendering of clothes, attitudes, and opinions, and finally the gendering of sex. It's all just caveman talk, imo

Gender is the cultural outcome of primary and secondary sexual characteristics and in no meaningfully physical way exist. In other words, we traditionally have a "boy" culture and a "girl" culture, not a gender. We are artificially indoctrinated and assimilated into a given culture based on primary or secondary sexual characteristics.

Likewise, it follows that all other gender identities are similarly a cultural phenomenon and not the outcome of some essential characteristic of the individual.

Gender cultures are, at least historically speaking, bad. They've generally been used to persecute people who aren't in the dominant (boy) gender, and the conditions dictating mobility between genders is so intensly arbitrary that it warrants abolishing the whole stupid idea. Gender dysphoria is a symptom, generally, of the tyranny of these conditions.

(PS, I totally am open to being wrong about this.)

To take over the world? I'd take the records of every international technology and medical patent. And, a cell phone. I'd get the local news interested in my new handheld PC, find the least scrupulous tech company which reached out to me, and hatch a plan to create a trillion dollar tech empire.

This is bloody hilarious 🤣

It sounds really cool, but I've honestly had issues installing it on two PCs now on two separate occasions separated by a couple months. Issues I didn't have installing Ubuntu. The installer would fail to complete. I'm not a Linux power user, and while I tried debugging for a few hours, I gave up.

Omg, I forgot about that character 😅