I probably said it too dramatically, the kinds of people that need to hear it will just knee-jerk dismiss me, but seriously think about the phrase “normal names are required for the functioning of society”. What a wild-ass thing to say. Required why? Is society really that fragile? Sounds like maybe it should be replaced by something that can handle the occasional mildly spicy letter. Mine isn’t even that spicy, it’s like whole-egg-mayo levels of spice.
Nerds can be so freaky.
No they’re not. They’re required for us to be catalogued and managed by a state, to our detriment and the enrichment of the ruling class.
“Normality” is a fucking scam that keeps your imagination in check, so you never look outside your assigned box and realise you don’t have to belong to anyone.
You have no idea how much genocidal violence has been done to condition our society to accept a dystopic phrase like “normal names are required for the functioning of society”.
Your mind has been caged.
As someone with a very mildly unusual name, I can tell you that it doesn’t matter whether a system could or could not meaningfully represent the name. Often the people or systems just refuse to acknowledge any deviation from what’s expected. Sometimes databases are written to enforce arbitrary grammatical rules that make my name impossible to write, or the people using the systems will just “correct” the “error” without telling me. I don’t mind that much but our normative systems just love to homogenise us.
Ah, that’s why it’s a bunch of symbols that make no sense, thanks for the clarification.
Wait did you edit this image? That’s some effort you’ve put in.
If the first movie is similar the humans were taken from Earth millennia ago, so not really a prime directive issue I wouldn’t think. Not only are they not an indigenous species, they’ve technically already made first contact. John Star Trek would rescue them.
“Black-throated bullshit” as a phrase goes pretty hard though.
Even if it weren’t true I would definitely tell the advertisers it was.
Also, what does it mean to “tolerate” the existence of minorities? What exactly are we “tolerating”? Tolerance in every other context means to accept deviation from a standard or some negative outcome.
Framing anyone’s mere existence as a thing to be “tolerated” is to imply they are deviant or negative.
That’s where the paradox of tolerance loses me. I don’t think we should be tolerant in general. I think we should make value judgements about what is good or bad and act accordingly. Every society does this, and pretending we’re above it all and completely neutral is dishonest.
And if the “tolerance” is of differing views, diversity of thought is also good, not a bad thing to be tolerated.
It’s simple: we identify behaviour that is bad, like bigotry and hatred, and we say no. We’re not rejecting it because it’s merely different, and to accept that framing is to accept the cry-bullying of fascists. We reject them because they suck, and we don’t owe them shit about it.
It’s so predictable too. Did someone do something indefensible and you don’t want to face up to it? Try blaming the victim today! Ask your propagandist if victim blaming is right for you.
Yup. Robert Reich posted something that ended with “Take a moment to breathe, then let the resistance begin.”
And like, buddy, I’m sorry to say, if your resistance is only just beginning, then you are resisting the wrong thing and you will be ineffective. You should be fighting the entire empire, not just the unmasked pieces of it.
The election is your chance to ask for your preferred enemy, but if you don’t get it, your job doesn’t change.
Oh no… I implemented my AccessoryCount as an unsigned BigInt for some reason. That’s more than the particles in the known universe.
I’ll just step outside on a clear night and claim that the stars themselves are my accessories. Is that too pretentious?
The phrase “synthesised expert knowledge” is the problem here, because apparently you don’t understand that this machine has no meaningful ability to synthesise anything. It has zero fidelity.
You’re not exposing people to expert knowledge, you’re exposing them to expert-sounding words that cannot be made accurate. Sometimes they’re right by accident, but that is not the same thing as accuracy.
The fact you confused what the LLM is doing for synthesis is something loads of people will do, and this will just lend more undue credibility to its bullshit.
Fellow Aussie, I knew instinctively this was Aussie, just not which part.
What are you talking about? I don’t think you understood the concept of decentralised torrent-like hosting.
I’m currently talking to a peertube hoster about server costs, which I may be able to justify to host my own videos plus a little extra to pitch in for others who can’t justify the expense. Plenty of professional creators could easily justify it as an exit strategy or backup for youtube.
These conversations are happening, just not with you, presumably because you’re just being negative about it and not actually doing something, so why would anyone bother to bring it up with you?
Take out the phone part and allow users to host videos in a decentralised way on their home computers and it’s a genuinely good idea though. I have a server running with plenty of storage and reasonable upload speed. I could easily dedicate a terabyte or so, as long as I’m not the sole hoster.
It would be a hell of a lot cheaper than dedicated hosting. The only issue is legal problems when someone is unknowingly hosting abuse material, which is something that happens from time to time on all services like this, and an individual could be done for distribution without the protection big centralised services have. You’d just have to hope mods are on top of it.
Actually something like a debrid service but for peertube might work. You can get huge amounts of storage for cheap because a lot of it is shared, you might ask them to host a huge torrent file, but most torrent files serve multiple users, so the cost is distributed. Peertube could work a similar way if it were more mainstream.
If the judge said it then it would have been established fact in the case. This can be established by evidence and found as fact in the case, or it can be part of the agreed facts of the case, in which case the court doesn’t waste time hearing evidence. All it takes to become agreed fact is for the defence to present it as part of their case and for the prosecution to not dispute it.
In that context the finding of fact by the court is more than enough for the paper to report on it, and the two versions presented by you of it being said by the defence and by the judge, are entirely compatible with one another. Nobody is going to demand to see the boy’s medical history to verify an uncontroversial point like this. That would just be a waste of time.
The papers presented it as stated by the defence and the judge, they said nothing false or misleading, and I don’t see any problem with that part of their reporting.
Now, if you have an issue that it was reported because it casts autistic people in a bad light, the issue becomes whether you think it’s something the papers should leave out. Well, the defence considered it important, and it became news. Not much we can do about that after the fact.
That’s a beautiful name.