That’s what I was thinking about. In theory there could be a cool idea here. But using AI to do it would just give shitty results. But you could actually do a little research and find a few short articles or stories about things your kid is interested in, and then feed them into a decent TTS and edit it together like a podcast. Then where they would normally take a pause for an ad read have a little shout out wishing your kid a happy birthday or wishing them luck on their exams or competition or whatever. I think it could actually be pretty neat, and give you something to chat about while you listen, and having the little personalized messages would feel like magic to the kid, because it’s kind of like getting a shout out on Radio/Television. It can be exciting and make you feel bigger than just your small social bubble. It’s exciting to have a little 30 seconds of fame.

But obviously Altman is just grasping at straws to shill his product, and hasn’t put this much thought into it.

In what way are we not doing the shops work? I understand that unnecessary jobs get phased out if there are more efficient ways. For example parking attendants getting replaced by kiosks. Instead of paying someone to stand there all day and take payments for people entering, you have a machine to do it instead. And the experience for the customer is exactly the same. Instead of handing your card/money over to a person, you are now inserting it into a machine.

But in the case of self checkout, the machine does not take your groceries, scan them all, and manually input produce that doesn’t have a barcode. Instead, that burden falls onto the customer. And while yes, for a single person doing a single transaction, that really isn’t a lot to ask. But you are literally doing the exact thing that they were previously paying someone else to do. If what you are doing, is something that they would otherwise be paying somebody else to do, how is that you not doing their work/ free labor? As a matter of fact pretty much all stores still have regular checkouts. Where there is somebody in the store, performing the exact same tasks as you, just on a larger scale. And getting paid to do so.

Would it be acceptable for stores to start asking people to restock a shelf if they go to grab an item and see the shelf is low or empty? I mean they’re not asking you to restock the whole store, just that one item. And it’s really not that much of a burden, and if everybody does it, then the store will always be stocked! Why should they have to pay employees to keep the shelves stocked when it’s more efficient for everybody to just contribute a little bit? It’s hardly even work at that point.

I’m assuming at 30 hours in, you’ve tried other weapons. I had a very similar experience where I wanted to enjoy the game but was just completely miserable. I started out with the daggers. But once I unlocked the hammer, I started having a much better time. It can still be pretty frustrating at times, but it seemed like a lot of the difficulty I was having had to do with my play style and weapon choice not working well together.

I’m not trying to shift the moment of sin. Obviously the purchase was made with the intent to cook and eat the meat. I’m just responding to the scenario that has been given. When somebody has already purchased the meat, as is in this case, what are the benefits of trying to prevent them from consuming it? In the scenario of the post, the person already has made the purchase in the store, already brought it home, and is already in the act of cooking it. At this point what is the purpose of hoping that their power goes out and the food they’ve already bought goes to waste? Rather than accurately criticizing the act of making the purchase in the first place.

This whole comment chain was about the fact that the argument should be made to prevent someone from purchasing meat. And that there isn’t much point to preventing someone from consuming meat after the purchase has already been made. It’s the difference between treating a symptom vs treating the underlying issue.

No no, the character looks like Daniel Potter.

That’s what this person is saying. After someone has already made the purchase, it’s better to eat the meat. Because the damage has already been done by the purchase, showing demand for the meat, and causing the meat to be restocked. So once you already have it, (like in the case of this post, where they already had it, and were actively cooking it) it’s better to just eat the meat so that it doesn’t go to waste

At least where I live, they actually do! They have video games that you can check out just like books/movies/cds. It was one of the ways I got to try out a ton of games growing up.

If you have problems with religions as a whole, I think that’s fine. But why is Islam specifically not compatible with western society but Christianity is? Islam isn’t monolithic in the same way Christianity isn’t monolithic. I’m sure you could cherry pick things from the Quran that are dangerous and scary. I could do the same thing with the Bible. Not all Christians follow the Bible strictly as written. The same is true of Muslims and the Quran. Do you think Christian values are aligned with what leftists fight for? Do you believe we should remove Christians from the country for having differing values from leftist goals? And as long as there is a separation of church and state, then it doesn’t really matter what religious beliefs someone holds.

I would make the argument that the difference between A and B is not “dialing down the feminism”, but more about the general demeanor/civility/methods. You can address the issues of B without blaming it on feminism.

If you take two people who are vegan. A will sit down and talk to you about the reasons behind their choice to be vegan, and try to convince you to give veganism a try or even just reduce your meat consumption and supplement it with vegan meals. And B will get in your face and yell at you about what a horrible monster you are for eating animal products. I wouldn’t say that B is “more vegan” than A. And I wouldn’t say that the problem with B is that they’re too vegan. The issue is with how they treat others.

Exactly this! The DNC failures are completely irrelevant.

People never should have voted for a candidate boasting about creating the most lethal military and finishing the border wall to keep all the evil immigrants out.

Wait, what do you mean that was Harris’s campaign?

The problem is that while it’s true Harris would have been a better outcome than this shitshow currently happening (which is why I voted for her), Harris was still trying to tack to the fucking right. Instead of standing in opposition to Trump, she relented on his talking points. Instead of pushing back on the anti immigrant narrative and acknowledging the border wall for the racist bullshit waste of money that it is, she criticized him for not actually finishing it, and promised that she would finish the job herself.

You don’t think that is a failure of the DNC trying to pivot right to be able to capture the never trump Republicans while losing support from the core of their party? If you want people to vote for you, give them a fucking reason to vote for you. Don’t pose yourself as a watered down version of the other candidate. And then get upset for people not voting for the lesser evil when you’re doing your best to get as close as possible to the greater evil without copying them completely.

People always argue that we could have pushed Harris farther left after she was elected, but how do we do that? During the run up to election, with the primaries and everything was the best time to push for her to change her policy. During that time, you have your vote as leverage. And you communicate what you want to see from the candidate in order to get your vote. After she’s elected, what leverage do the people have to get her to enact progressive policies? And during the primaries, people were very vocal about wanting Harris to change her policy on Israel and Gaza. And even with the pressure, and knowing exactly what she had to do to gain those votes, she refused to budge.

This is more like being stuck in a bus heading towards a cliff, and one person is telling you they’re going to floor it and go off the cliff going 90 mph and the other person saying that would go off the cliff at a reasonable 60 mph instead. I get that one is technically better than the other, and that perhaps we don’t have the luxury of finding the perfect person saying they’re just going to hit the brakes. But do you really expect people to be enthusiastic about someone saying they’re going to take you to the exact same demise but just slightly slower?

Sounds interesting. Any way I can wishlist or sign up for a news letter to be notified about development and release date?

Had me in the first half till I saw the username.

You’re correct in that it is an odd question. But just because it is a question that isn’t commonly asked doesn’t mean that it’s not one that can intuitively be solved.

And the entire point is that AI would never be trained on it. That’s how we are able to demonstrate the difference between AI and humans. For the longest while you could also ask AI how many 'r’s are in the word strawberry. And it would get this wrong. Because people don’t normally go around asking questions about occurrences of letters in words. So this wasn’t in the training data. But if you ask the same question to a human, they’re able to deduce the answer. Even though it is a peculiar question, and doesn’t get asked often. The entire point is that the AI are able to parrot little tidbits that they’ve been trained on. Like being able to walk short distances, or the environmental impact of cars, etc. But they’re not able to reason in the same way that a human can.

And what do you mean of course the car is there? Under what circumstances would your car be sitting at a car wash, without you in it, unwashed, when you want to wash your car. This is such a ridiculous leap to make. Did you drive your car to the car wash, park it, and get out to walk 50 meters away? Did somebody else drive your car to the carwash without you and just leave it there? It makes no sense.

I’m not sure I follow your logic. My /s is there because tone can be ambiguous within text. I don’t think tone is relevant to the question. Do you think that a tone indicator would have made the question more clear?

The point is that all the information is either present or implied in the question. You can spend all day nitpicking the ambiguity of questions all you want, but it doesn’t get you anywhere. There comes a point where it gets exhaustive trying to preemptively cut off follow up questions and make clarifications.

When you are in school and they give you a word problem such as “you have 10 apples and give 3 to your friend. How many do you have left?” It is generally agreed upon what the question is asking. It’s intentionally obtuse to sit there and say the question is flawed because you may have misplaced some of your apples, or given some to another friend, or someone may have come and stolen some, or some may have started to rot and so you threw them out, or perhaps you miscounted and you didn’t actually give 3 to your friend.

That’s a very good point! For that matter the car could still be at the bar where I got drunk and took an uber home last night. In which case walking or driving would both be stupid.

Or perhaps I’m in a wheelchair, in which case I wouldn’t really be ‘walking’.

Or maybe the car wash that is 50 meters away is no longer operating, so even if I walked or drove there, I still wouldn’t be able to walk my car.

Is the car wash self serve or one of the automatic ones? If it’s self serve what type of currency does it take? Does it only take coins or does it take card as well? If it takes coins, is there a change machine out front? Does the change machine take card or only bills? Do I even have my wallet on me?

There are so many details left out of this question that nobody could possibly fathom an answer!

…/s if it’s not obvious

Are they even accusing the article itself of manufacturing consent? The way I read that, it was talking about online spaces and communities falling for the manufactured consent. Which is not coming from the reporting, but from propagandists, who use the reporting to help them manufacture consent.

I’m nowhere near well versed enough on the topic to chime in. But isn’t this the same excuse people try to throw against supporters of Palestine? “Oh yeah you support ending the genocide in Palestine? Did you know they throw LGBT people off the rooftops”.

Regardless of the truth/inaccuracy of the statement. It seems like it’s not really that relevant to the conversation and just thrown out there as a cheap gotcha. Does the suppression of LGBT individuals mean that their overall quality of life hasn’t improved? Does a country have to be perfect and not have other social changes that need to be worked towards in order to acknowledge progress? This is not an endorsement of China, again I’m not knowledgeable enough on the topic. But just a criticism of this rebuttal.

Gestures broadly at the US.

While that’s true, I think by positioning ourselves at the 2nd state, it allows us to “negotiate” our way down to getting the 1st state. Its kind of like haggling. If you start at the more extreme position, opposition will (in an ideal scenario) try to find a middle ground to agree on. And that middle ground would look like the 1st state. It’s a way of combatting the ratcheting effect.

Woah. That sounds interesting. Care to elaborate?