You can be proud of your community and others you identify with without putting that pride on arbitrary bounds of organization regardless of how the organization is ran.

No love for guild wars, I see

He knew what he was doing and he knew conservatives are too fucking dumb to realize what the natural result would be. It’s kinda’ one of the things they’re known for.

Moose. Moose win.

I mean, just because it’s not for “all ages” shouldn’t imply NSFW… This is like PG area, maybe PG13 if you’re a prude, neither of which are “all ages”.

Well he clearly gives a shit about taking a shit.

Acceptable quality is a bit of a stretch in many cases… Especially with the hallucinations everywhere in generated text.

No, it’s worth blanket hating because most all of the commercial “AI”:

1. Are trained illegally on copyrighted works where the vast majority of the human artists/writers behind their works did NOT consent to their work being used to train for-profit models.
2. Are actively being used to replace peoples’ jobs in many sectors, which is causing yet more economic hardship all because execs are too fucking dumb to understand how not intelligent “AI” is.
3. Use an insane amount of power to train, and a still very large amount to run queries/etc on. This has massively accelerated power and water usage in many regions. This directly accelerates global warming for giant corporations’ profits.
4. Are not actual artificial intelligence, so are marketed with literal misinformation.

I am amazed people are still this misinformed about why people dislike AI…

Hopefully they used a slightly different literal design, because the WTC had serious design flaws that allowed it to fall as it did.

Basically, it’s columns along the outside held together only by the floors’ structure themselves. So when a plane took out a bunch of floors and the fire weakened more, there was suddenly an entire middle section that didn’t have any lateral support. This allowed the colimns along those sections to accordion in/out to begin the fall. Since buildings aren’t made to have dynamic forces of the scale of the entire freaking building’s weight, that made even the structurally sound sections fail on impact as the upper floors came down ontop of them, etc.

There were also compounding construction issues, as the fire resistant coating was supposed to be sprayed directly on to the steel floor beams up to a minimum depth, but investigations even before the collapse showed the builders were lazy fucks and just sprayed large sections from one vantage point, leaving some areas thinner or not covered at all.

If they used a similar design, something as simple as a typical fire could cause the whole thing to collapse.

We are not planning to offer things like ID checks or facial recognition because these require us to pay a third party to confirm each person.

Ohh so close.

How are you this confused over two sentences? You are seriously braindead…

English isn’t programming that’s why PHRASING is important. If you cannot understand that basic, utterly foundational tenant of communication, then there truly is no hope for you.

Nobody should be required to understand what is meant by a poorly phrased sentiment. Good communication is about what messages can be received, not about what was intended. It’s exactly why professional writers say to avoid idioms. It doesn’t matter what is meant. It matters what can be received.

It is wholly on you if you continue to fail to understand this utterly basic lesson of clear communication. One more time just to be clear: I am not against the sentiment of what was said. I am against phrasing it in such flippantly silly ways.

I don’t care who others date. I do care about people spreading racist hate. Your bigotry is not appreciated and it’s hilarious that you claim to be against racism while espousing such bigotry. Genuinely, you are pathetically not self-aware.

Where did I say anything about reproduction? Are you so pathetic you cannot even work past baby’s first talking points?

Hey, it’s not my desire to have a wholly separate space for a subsection of the community… It’s not my fault OP doesn’t understand the consequences of public message boards. I’m just suggesting ideas that might get closer to their desired mixed reality.

Obviously if they want to do it correctly, it’d have to be something like a separate women-only instance with approved joins. Then they’d be able to facilitate a space where undesirables cannot post.

What else could it mean in this context? It means less mental exhertion and thought. You know, the things understanding requires.

The irony… it’s palpable… Have fun wallowing in your ignorance. I will not suffer your pathetic sealioning any longer.

It isn’t more efficient. That’s why I will always call humans dumb and arrogant. That’s not the argument being made, either. The argument was that it is easier to destroy, not more efficient.

Yea, the only way I could see them intervening is if they were acrively against unnatural extinctions, and even that requires them to differentiate between the actions of species and the actions of physical objects (and to have such a distinction in concept in the first place). If they viewed humanity as akin to a bacterial infection about to destroy the host planet, I could see such a hypothetical species taking action.

Funnily enough about conservation of energy… it actually doesn’t hold up on the cosmic scale! It’s only true of closed systems, and the universe is a very open system. I forget the intricacies, though. PBS SpaceTime had an episode on the very topic some months ago.

Yes, but one of those would have clear signs we’d see from afar first, and the other is wholly separate of your earlier proposition that they’d be corporate representatives looking for resources.

I am not dismissing the solutions. I am arguing against the original phrasing of the suggestion. If you rephrase it to mean something that wasn’t originally said, then of course you won’t understand the implications of the much more poorly stated version…

For your own safety you should really ask about their political ideology before meeting them. Make sure to not let them fool you either, never tell them yours first.

Ask them before meeting (so your suggestion of writing on cards is totally irrelevant), but don’t tell them yours… If all good people followed that advice, then no good people will tell others their leanings first, and since no one is telling their leanings, no one would agree to meet.

It’s right there, in two fucking sentences. How is this so difficult to understand?