ObjectivityIncarnate

1. It doesn’t take being Jesus to hold a door for someone.
2. You did the right thing holding that door, the regret is a flaw for you to work on, whether you’re willing to admit it or not.

Being kind and being a doormat are not the same thing.

You shouldn’t.

It’s easy to be kind to pleasant people. There’s no virtue in that.

What an idiotic article, from the headline down.

Locally replacing some letters with some other letters is going to make Microsoft’s CEO cry? Really?

Also, I’ll not be using Chrome, lol.

You know, just leave “amazing” out of the headline if you’re gonna put single quotes around it, lol…it reads sarcastic.

The scientific community was basically backed into a corner: either create a new category for Pluto and similar bodies, or we go from 9 planets to over 3,000 (iirc), lol.

The only sensible choice was made, imo.

So, did you not read the comment to the end, or are you just equal parts smug and dishonest?

He should be punished because he isn’t bringing enough value to the table?

No, but neither should his boss (in the form of the forced charity that is paying someone more for their work than their work is worth). Hence my position that:

It’s the government’s job to provide the difference between fair market wage and “living wage”, if its aim is to guarantee that.

Or maybe the business should expense properly and the wages should be a little more evenly divided between him and others.

So the others who would otherwise be getting paid properly, according to their labor’s value, have to now get paid less, to subsidize those whose labor isn’t as valuable? That’s not fair to them.

It’s not the boss’s, or the coworkers’, responsibility to ‘pick up the slack’ for work that’s paid fairly according to the value it generates, while also being less than a “living wage”. Neither are to blame for a particular job generating less value than the worker needs to have a “living wage”, so neither should be held responsible, either. Again, it’s the government’s job to fulfill that promise, if it makes it.

If the business can’t run without government subsidies then its not a functioning business, its a charity case.

If you force the business to pay more in wages than the labor is worth, it’s still a charity case, you’re just arbitrarily forcing the citizens who own the business to be the source of the charity.

It’s passing the buck to other citizens, which primarily harms and has a chilling effect on entrepreneurship/small businesses (big megacorps can just ‘eat’ the additional cost without a problem), which in turns reduces competition and overall reduces the bargaining power of the workforce, as they compete for fewer jobs.

Market forces will naturally arrive at a price for job X, and shift as the state of the market shifts. I believe it is absolutely the government’s responsibility to both regulate the market so that said price isn’t manipulated (preventing monopolies, etc.), and to ‘pick up the slack’ when it wants everyone in the workforce to be earning at least $X, whenever the market price of their work falls below $X.

No one who works full time should live in poverty. We must keep fighting to guarantee all workers a living wage — not starvation wages.”

It’s the government’s job to provide the difference between fair market wage and “living wage”, if its aim is to guarantee that. The fact is, there is a LOT of work out there that creates less value than “a living wage”, and forcing employers to pay a “living wage” for those jobs is a very effective way to torpedo the vast majority of small business.

So common for people who don’t understand how generative AI works at all to think this is a big gotcha, lol, with their smug little thinking emoji.

For there to be squatters, the landlords had to have this property open and unrented for a while.

Huh? A squatter is most commonly simply a former renter who stops paying without moving out. The property is not vacant at any point.

Uh…

https://youtu.be/vpZf-svlXnQ

They’re each trying to put their own spin on it, there is no actual distinction in the words, just in the subtext/implication.

The former implies it’s a lacking of a necessary thing, the latter implies it’s the avoidance of an unnecessary burden. It’s completely subjective whether a child is one or the other to someone.

It’s a broadcast of one’s own biases to consider either of these terms more ‘valid’ than the other.

I know you aren’t, you said “the school”. But there is no school outside of some hypothetical extreme tyrannical institute that exerts 24/7 control of word and deed of the student body, that could be reasonably expected to be able to completely prevent something like a student creating and spreading doctored images of another student, that’s all I’m saying.

You can absolutely identify someone failing to do their job without fully understanding how to do said job. You know a bad doctor when you see one just as you know a bad cashier.

But what’s happening here is similar to a pharmacist being accused of failing to do their job because they filled a prescription that the patient’s doctor erred in prescribing. It’s absolutely not fair to blame the pharmacist for that.

It would be similarly unfair to accuse a cashier of not doing their job because they didn’t apply a discount they were neither ever told about, nor was it labeled on the merchandise it was supposed to apply to, either.

Expecting a school to have the ability to prevent (again, that’s the key word) an image, any image, being shared between students on the bus, is absurd. You can say they failed in appropriately punishing the act after the fact, but it is absolutely not fair to expect that the school can stop it from happening in the first place.

That’s not a question for me to answer.

Then you also shouldn’t be saying that the school “failed” to do something, if you’re not able to even articulate how it could have possibly succeeded in doing that something, no?

It is, in fact, the school faculty’s duty to educate our school children as well as protect them.

Only to a degree that makes sense, though. There’s no way a school can ever stop a student from saying a mean thing to another student, for example. It can only punish after the fact (and “protect” implies prevention, not after-the-fact amelioration).

You say this as if the US is the only place generative AI models exist.

That said, the US (and basically every other) government is helpless against the tsunami of technology in general, much less global tech from companies in other countries.

school fails to protect her from AI deep fake nudes

I hear you, but what could the school have actually done to prevent this, realistically? Only way I could see is if smartphones etc. were all confiscated the moment kids step on the school bus (which is where this happened, for anyone not aware, it wasn’t in a classroom), and only returned when they’re headed home, and while it probably would be beneficial overall for kids to not have these devices in school, I don’t think that’s realistically possible in the present day.

And even still, it’d be trivial for the kid to both generate the images and share them with his buddies, after school. I don’t think the school can really be fairly blamed for the deepfake part of this. For not acting more decisively after the fact, sure.

Is “never learning how to set vertical alignment” one of the spaces under “poor life choices”? /s

I don’t know if “give” is a fair word to use there, lol