Mmm, I mean, we kinda are in the same boat? Ultimately it has to be understood that no matter what media tells us, women aren’t owning the terf movement. There are terf women, to be sure; I’d argue that most self-described terfs are women. But the movement itself is upheld and propagated by men and patriarchy. Like, JK Rowling is a right fuckin cunt, but she wouldn’t have jack shit if it hadn’t been for Elon Musk boosting her, for Fox News, Daily Mail, etc boosting her, for Kier Starmer justifying her and pushing her to the press. Her power, her movements’ power, comes from capital and patriarchy granting it to advance their own interests. I wish all transphobes a merry fuck you, but the “leaders” have owners, and those owners are in that carriage.

I was halfway to “let him cook” before I got to your own included misogyny and trans exclusion

All I can conclude from this is that Dolly Parton and Tim Curry were the same person

That’s… That’s exactly the opposite of what the article says 😭 The article is literally about how the guy deploying the model is liable for the harm it causes, as would be the corpo’s. It’s so weird when people comment without reading 😂

For-profit healthcare is like for-profit ice cream: The point isn’t the ice cream.

What you have to understand is that the CEOs and upper management of these companies genuinely believe that human intelligence is just a predictive model. They are so divorced from humanity, from actual people, that they only trust each other, and even then, barely. Some psychologist posited that consciousness is in part predictive, then Curtis Yarvin latched onto that half-baked headline and wrote on it, and then these sick fucks all had the same ideas: That they each are always the smartest man in the room, that their genuinely shallow creativity is deeper than anyone else’s, and that if the next guy who they consider almost as smart as themselves says it’s because humans are just complex llm’s then it must be true; that if they are barely smarter than this shittu technology, then all of humanity must be at or below it.

It’s more important to you to hold some personal sense of moral superiority than engage with the death of millions; your blasé attitude speaks volumes towards your privilege. I have no doubt that the reason you don’t want kids has far less to do with climate change than being able to say you won’t because of climate change.

A) we don’t need infinite growth; what we need is a tapering down so we don’t end up with an entire generation spending their golden years in a ditch. B) As I’ve stated to another user, you’re equivocating. Stop that. We’ve had the same percentile decrease in the last 20 years as we did throughout the previous century; you’re looking at two different rates of decrease and calling them the same because they both happen to be decreases. That’s not how math works.

I never said just affecting the south, I said disproportionately. And you’re kind of proving my point: Before widespread information access, you probably wouldn’t even know. And yes, that is a good thing, as I stressed repeatedly in my post; not all reasons to blame the smartphone are bad, many are even good. It is a good thing people know about climate change. About the human cost of imperialism. About genocide. But that alone doesn’t account for the sheer drop, either, and there are negatives to this technology that need to be addressed.

You’re obfuscating: It’s been well documented that the availability of resources is inversely correlated to birthrates. We’ve had as much dropoff since the phone as we did since the industrial revolution. You’re calling two different rates of drop the same because they’re both drops; that’s not how math works.

I… Look, can we be real for a minute? None of these are why people aren’t having kids.

Climate change is primarily affecting the global south, countries that have had the slowest drop in birth rates. Air quality globally has been increasing for decades. Yes, the current generation has less attainability than their parents, but modern life quality is still higher than any point in history. Even if you were to attribute it to that decrease, there have been decreases in resources between generations before without anywhere near the dropoff of births. Sumerian peasants didn’t have this level of decrease during concurrent wars and famine, both demonstrably worse conditions than most people alive will ever face.

Current studies point to one correlative factor: Smartphones. Now, we can discuss why: Personally I believe it is a mix of several reasons, including beneficial ones. I would argue that smartphone have made people more aware than ever of the unfairness of life in modern society, as an example of a beneficial cause. 30 years ago, a woman in Nebraska wouldn’t know intimately the firsthand account of a modern genocide, for example. Let me be clear: This is undoubtedly, unequivocally a good thing.

But we also need to address the sheer amount of slop content and unending access. Shortform content is proven to inflict users with symptoms reflective of ADHD and anxiety. Social media is built to make us not just dependent but addicted. The rise of smartphones has been part and parcel to the loss of third spaces; it’s not just that people lost community, it’s that we have also replaced it with instant access to online communities that cannot and will never be a viable replacement. We let the rich finally build the ultimate circus. And fixing that will not just require a fundamental restructuring of society, but also tough conversations about our responsibility to escape these systems.

Idk I remember a time when Sony was the least bad guy. Back when ps3 came out, you didn’t need a subscription for online play, and you could actually browse the web (poorly, but, somebody tried. I remember when my laptop shit the bed and I used my ps3 to submit an assignment on blackboard in 2008). I thought that was pretty cool. Not that Sony was good; the profit motive was there, and the second they saw Xbox requiring a subscription for online play, you best believe they built plus overnight. But, there was a time when good people got good ideas snuck past bad company management I guess.

That’s literally why I do

Very true. Personally, my complaint isn’t one of guilt but responsibility: It is not the government’s fault, but it is its responsibility, and the parties have in the past engaged in the same anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination as their forebears. This isn’t a gotcha against communist governments, but a genuine request to do better.

Rip

Software dev here; 100%. I just want to point out that 4/5 times management hasn’t bought in on ai so much as they suck partner dick who have a vested interest selling it. These aren’t the rubes, they’re just further down the con-man line.

Sometimes I’m on my phone while wiping a streaky one and lose track of the amount of paper used.

I think you just used a poor example. The fact is that the arts have been shared for millennia, and are an intrinsic part of the human experience. The community theater has survived every mode of production in human history, and will continue to do so. You may have to exchange some minor labor for a canvas, but the art itself is made to be shared. I have a hard time imagining any artist, no matter the skill, gate keeping their talents without the profit motive. There is no other reason. Art isn’t like a commodity: More bread for me is less bread for you, but more art for me is also more art for you.

deleted by creator