BillyClark

People who are publicly pro-AI like Trump are simply fucking idiots in my book. Let me explain:

Reasons to be publicly pro-AI: It’s an inevitable future, and you wish to seem smart by predicting the future. (Unfortunately, it’s completely obvious that it’s inevitable, so nobody will think you’re smart at this point.) You don’t want others to get there first, or you want to use AI to your own profit. (Okay, but making your opinion public isn’t going to help, then. Basically, this is something that the governments will be doing in private, inevitably.) You are selling AI tech to others. (This is really the only excuse that makes any sense, but most of us aren’t that person.)

Reasons to be publicly anti-AI: It’s the most dangerous technology in history, so at the very least, you should slow the progress down. It’s probably going to be the most economically disruptive technology in history, so you need to slow the fuck down. If you’re actually pro-AI, isn’t it better to be publicly anti-AI? If the tech is so good, then you’ll benefit from others refusing to use it. If you’re a company that makes AI today, then warning the public about AI gives you a better chance to control the market and keep new companies out with a huge barrier to entry.

Being publicly pro-AI right now basically labels you as an irrational idiot or maybe a person who sells AI tech.

That’s been doctrine since 2018.

American Catholics should also be prohibited by doctrine from voting for political candidates who support the death penalty. The death penalty is carried out on behalf of the government. You know, “of the people.”

Voting for a death penalty candidate is a form of participating in the executions that come from that vote. If the executioner refuses to do their job, the government will find someone else.

Compare that with abortion, it’s only allowing others to get abortions. If an expectant woman refuses to get an abortion, that’s the end of that. It’s just her choice.

That was a crude sign, regardless. The sign said “Warning! Damage caused by beavers”.

This is the end of the article:

Beavers were once almost hunted to extinction in Poland. By 1928, it was estimated that only 235 remained in the country. However, thanks to postwar efforts to reintroduce the animals into the Polish wilderness, the beaver population has grown and is currently estimated at around 150,000.

Ecologists note that beavers play an important role in tackling drought by retaining water through the dams they build. Those dams also create “oases of biodiversity”, notes the state water agency PGW WP.

However, the rodents can cause damage to roads, houses and farmland, which has led some to call for culls to keep beaver numbers down.

From this description, it seems like beavers were building there first, and their constructions were more important to the ecology of the land, so isn’t it more correct to say that it’s the thing that humans did afterwards that is the damage, and that the beavers’ constructions are the ones that are supposed to be there?

Also, even if you think that the beavers are causing damage, it’s sort of rude to say that on the sign. If somebody called Daniel Tilles was to drive his car badly and cause damage to a guard rail along a road, are we going to put up a sign saying, “Warning! Damage caused by Daniel Tilles.” I think that would just be rude.

Jucika as a Blair Witch.

If the Nidal Hasan Execution Is Livestreamed, 1 + 1 = 2

I’ve never been to Singapore, but I think vending machines should be common enough there that they wouldn’t mistranslate it as ATM.

Also for all funds they used for him to go to his personal hotels and golf courses.

“Would you still love me if I was a worm?”

“How large of a worm, exactly?”

Yes and I mentioned that very thing, intention, in the comment you replied to. I thought it was pretty plainly written but at least two people completely missed it based on their replies.

Lots of the worst criminals have tragic back stories. Maybe demented by childhood trauma. Maybe they never had a chance due to sharing genetics with their abusers.

Heck, for all we know, Rowling might have some sort of trauma that helped shaped her into one of today’s leading assholes.

What I do know is that Rowling doesn’t seem to have broken any laws, but I have been told that Michael had individual victims whose lives he likely altered for the worse with criminal actions. (I speak with a little hedging because I haven’t actually reviewed any of the most recent evidence against him.)

I see what you’re saying, but I think you wouldn’t be saying these things if the votes had been tallied properly and he became POTUS.

That being said, politicians at the highest levels are supposed to be good enough at their jobs that they don’t say things like that which can be easily taken out of context. I mean, it’s not like the person who quoted him only used part of the quote to change the meaning of the sentence. He literally meant what it said.

Some people like Trump for the fact that he’s absolute shit as a politician, but I think there’s some use in electing a person who is actually smart enough to be a good politician.

Lately I’ve tried to come to terms with the fact that I am unable to completely discard a creator’s work just because the creator is or was a horrible person. Like Michael Jackson has got to be thousands of times worse than Rowling, but I can’t stop liking his music.

I know, fuck Rowling and all that, but let’s talk about whether this could happen in the HP universe. It couldn’t. Thank you for your attention.

Remember their first lesson on Wingardium Leviosa and how important pronunciation and wand control was? It basically isn’t supposed to work if you mispronounce it, and the pronunciation is pretty strict. Also, as we saw from The Half Blood Prince, for dark magic, you really have to cast the spell with intention.

In the situation portrayed, the guys committing the SA know that they’re doing something evil. The victim knows what happened.

I’m not sure why anybody with zero knowledge needs to butt in and attack. How hard is it to keep quiet or supportive?

Al Gore literally had the presidency stolen from him by SCOTUS.

From Wikipedia:

An analysis of the NORC data by University of Pennsylvania researcher Steven F. Freeman and journalist Joel Bleifuss concluded that, no matter what standard is used, after a recount of all uncounted votes, Gore would have been the victor.

I can’t blame Gore for unpopularity when he won the popular vote, and would have won the electoral vote had they just been allowed to actually count the votes fairly.

Was her name Kelly Hoppen?