the headline did, but the actual article does not

bad title, the actual article is talking about the percentage of each that own homes, not expecting half of all homes to be owned by LGBTQ people

Tbh he could probably make plenty as a conservative media personality of some kind. Start some webshow and sell tacky branded garbage and fake health supplements to his supporters or something like that

“just change the system” is easier said than done, which I suspect you realize of course, since if it were so easy, you’d have changed it yourself already. The difficulty in such change is that it requires a very large number of people to act in unison, which is quite rare, especially when most people aren’t literally starving, and have different ideas over what they want the system to be, some of which might be better, but some of which might be as bad or worse. It’s a bit like how libertarian types sometimes remark that, if everyone stopped paying taxes, the government would run out of money and be unable to enforce them anymore: technically true, but requires humans to act with uncharacteristic unity towards a singular goal, against pushback from established power. Not to say that it never happens, but it does not seem to happen reliably or in a way that can be readily forced to occur.

I mean, the greater evil would presumably have gotten us worse. And in a system that is set up so as to inevitably produce two viable parties, and where “good” is not on the ballot from either, what else do you expect people to do?

tbf, arent those border policies somewhat popular among some latino voters? Im not defending those policies as they dont align with my own views on the topic, but theres plenty of room for people that managed to get through the immigration system legally to look down of people who havent, or for people born in the country to dislike migration even if their ancestors did it, or for people that want to “pull up the ladder behind them” so to speak. Biden couldnt exactly expect Trump’s border policies to automatically win him that demographic either way.

Why does it need to be a formal contract? People can engage in relationships without the law being involved. I tend to think we should disentangle marriage and law, have some paperwork one can fill out for the legal affairs like hospital visitation and such that can be changed without the same degree of court proceeding, and have the religious or cultural ritual as just a ritual people can but are not obligated to hold if they feel like with no legal meaning to it.

Id say yes to that statement, but for reasons that dont have to do with AI as I dont really view AI training as piracy.

Would this even be necessary for automated ordering anyway? Given that every company under the sun wants you to use some app of theirs these days, including fast food companies, Im kinda surprised they dont just get rid of the speaker/microphone system, and just put a sign with a qr code in front of the drive through telling you to download and use their app to put in a drive through order

Some people take “where the sun don’t shine” as a challenge it seems

I mean, it did bother people, it just took more skill and time at using photo manipulation software to make it look convincing such that it was rare for someone to both have the expertise and be willing to put in the time, so it didnt come up often enough to be a point of discussion. The AI just makes it quick and easy enough to become more common.

Trying to educate people to avoid all porn sounds even less likely to be successful than trying to ban things on the internet, because you cant simply teach people to not get horny in response to certain visual stimuli, and trying to make people averse to depictions of anything sexual will just lead to a repressed society that still consumes porn but is even more embarrassed to talk about it, which causes more harm than good and still doesnt solve the problem at hand. Its also a misunderstanding of the issue anyway, because the problem isnt porn as a general concept, or even the use of AI to create it, but the creation of some that depicts real people against the wishes of those people, and secondarily the possibility that it could be used to make other people believe the event actually happened due to the ability to create photorealistic images and video.

Would banning it make it go away? No, of course not, but it would make it a bit riskier to make and spread, and that would reduce the number that do it. We already have certain kinds of porn banned due to requiring abuse to create, like CSAM, and while that certainly hasnt made it disappear, its not something one encounters regularly either. An argument of “we shouldnt ban this because bans dont work on the internet” would apply equally to our ban on that material too after all.

I dont think that this is really true, I strongly suspect that most people I know would consider someone drawing porn of them without consent a majorly icky thing to do, and would probably consider someone doing that to someone else to be a creep for doing so. The reason such drawings are less an issue is at least partly that the barrier to entry is lower with AI, since it takes a certain amount of skill and time investment to draw something like that such as to be clearly recognizable as any specific real person.

The thing with China imo is that part of the reason they’ve been so attractive for manufacturing has been that it’s cheaper there, and the reason that it’s cheaper there has been lower wages and lower safety standards. That’s bad for pretty much everyone except for companies making stuff in China, and consumers getting stuff cheaper than is probably viable with more ethical labor practices (and even then it’s not really much of a benefit to them, because those people need jobs too and so the negative impact there offsets that). It is sadly ironic that a country who’s stated ideology originally claimed to be in the interests of labor (not that it actually was, but they talked that way), has made it’s competitive advantage in the global economy pretty much be being a way around labor protections and unions.

Something I could see being potentially useful, then, would be a tariff policy that was roughly “if you make stuff using labor that’s significantly lower paid than our wages, or with worse safety standards, we raise the price to be around what it would be if it had been made to our labor standards, so that there is no advantage in not keeping things fair for our workforce and yours”. I’ve never really been a fan of things like tariffs, because I know that they mainly just make things more expensive and can reduce pressure to compete by domestic companies, but at the same time, the current system both makes the US dependent on goods made by exploited foreign workers as most people don’t have good enough jobs to afford much better than that which is made cheap by that exploitation, and incentives those foreign countries to keep their people trapped in those conditions and not raise standards, to avoid losing that competitive advantage to another country that does not.

I mean, realistically one wouldn’t want a rule like that, because if there was one, they’d probably make a bill that had both a child marriage ban but also a whole bunch of heinous rights restrictions and such, and then accuse anyone against of being against because of the child marriage part, but I get the sentiment.

It sure is strange how they’ll support Russia, despite being a crony capitalist state, on account of the Soviet union calling itself communist and Russia being a post-Soviet successor state, but not Ukraine, even though that’s also a post-Soviet state.

Admittedly not, no. I was making the assumption, possibly a naive one, that a computer should be capable of understanding the physics behind bullet trajectories well enough to shoot accurately even if the target is mobile.

I didn’t really think human operated, I was imagining something pretty much exactly like phalanx, but with a much smaller caliber and turret size owing to the small size of drones. Like a phalanx type software controller mounted to a small turret with a small caliber machinegun or automatic shotgun type weapon.

If you can target them with a laser though, why would a gun be much different? I know there’s dramatically more travel time, but bullets are still extremely fast, and even if one shot misses, something like a machinegun with a computerized control system seems like it ought to hit the thing before too long? Maybe the risk of missed shots causing harm might be too high for populated areas?

Is it just me, or does that discussion of the various ways to counter drones, kinda miss the obvious of just shooting them with a conventional gun?