I feel we need to look at AI as a consumer tool and not a production tool. We shouldn’t have it write “original stories” but use it as a fun feature to rewrite content we purchase.
Basically the consumer buys the original content and are free to mod the content to their liking, much like a PC game.
Don’t like the ending… have AI write a different one for fun.
I doubt that will ever happen, but artifacts in museums can absolutely be given back to indigenous nations without much effort on the museum’s part. They just don’t want to.
I would like to note that there’s plenty of war loot the US has that we took from dead Nazis, Imperial Japanese, Central Powers, Confederates, etc, and that’s pretty dope and they shouldn’t have it back.
I think that until the church does a few strong demonstrations that they are not fiddling with children anymore - like, say, a public commitment to turn all allegations of child abuse over to secular authorities, like Biden just did with the military - that they should not be allowed access to children that they don’t produce themselves.
That’s a much more difficult one to defend, from a legal or ethical or moral stance.
My opinion is that teaching a child religion as the only truth is child abuse, without telling the child that there are also people who believe there are no supernatural phenomena in the universe and explaining their best arguments for their viewpoint. It’s no different than existing in a society of hunters and not teaching the kid to hunt. We win by knowing more, not by being stronger or tougher or purer in dog’s eyes or whatever.
But my opinion is no basis for passing laws and such. When you’re talking about who should take care of orphans, or of kids who have been subject to treatment that the law agrees is abuse, the mere having of bad viewpoints which are nonetheless legal is not sufficient grounds, if you ask me. Many religious people would consider my above opinion to be bad at best and hate speech at worst, for instance, but I think my wife and I would do alright taking care of a kid, if we had the time and resources to give.
But IF the people proposing to take a child into their care are regular attendees of the meetings of an organization that is known to protect pedophiles, that is definitely grounds to turn down that application on very solid legal footing, if you ask me.
Well, I’m already on the record as to my view of what constitutes child abuse; the fact of the matter is that we have to live with a lot of people doing a lot of things that we don’t like to children in a free society in 2023.
What is kinda good from my 50-odd year perspective is that people are not quite so entitled now as they were when I was a kid.
I guess trees aren’t as profitable… Only places these things make sense is where you have an abundance of energy to use. Such as Iceland where they using geothermal
Im too lazy to look up, but as i understand trees dont remove as much as youd think. I remember one of these plants claimed they could remove CO2 to the equivalent of 1 million trees
I would like to be proven wrong but to me it just sounds like a sales pitch from some techbros. I believe it when I see it. “A better climate strategy, Jacobson says, would be to simply spend the money on building out renewable energy faster, so that coal and natural gas electricity plants can be retired more quickly”
We’ve already let our 13-year-old daughter know that we will do our best to support her if she wants to live on her own when she turns 18, but that she almost certainly is not going to be able to once she gets out of college dorms on a starter income, so she will always have a place to live with us if she wants/needs it. I hate to be the bearer of harsh reality on her, but she needs to know that, unless things drastically change, she may not have the independence she wants when she becomes an adult. And a lot of parents are in our position.
What makes it harder is that we’re basically told as parents to never respect our child’s privacy because they might be hurting themselves or having suicidal thoughts or communicating with pedophiles or doing drugs (I trust my child and respect her privacy, but this is what parents get bombarded with). And then they become adults and expect you to treat them like adults but they still live with you because they have nowhere to go. A lot of parents are going to have trouble with that.
These same clowns are going to cry and complain when these local stores shut down and leave the area without any jobs and no ability to do local shopping. This is how “food deserts” happen and how downtown areas become a ghost town.
Because there are some kooks on Lemmy that have this attitude that “well the company is just going to use insurance to pay for those items, so it’s barely even considered theft if you take from a big company”.
Mix that in with anti-work and anti-corporation sentiment and they could probably justify this shit.
And I’d totally agree with you as much as is realistic. Sure, trying to get some 20% off coupon or some clearance deal and sticking it to the man that way is one thing… literal theft is scummy.
Oh so you think these clowns draw the line at LV purses and ugly shoes?? Yeah ok. Same pieces of trash that do this, will also be willing to hit up some grocery store and steal all the baby formula or other high value items.
And when regular folks see this shit happening, it makes them want to visit all those areas less which creates a downward spiral for businesses and ultimately jobs as companies say “fuck this” and close up shop.
And that still doesn’t create food deserts. You don’t understand what a food desert is.
Food deserts are created when Walmart sets up shop and undercuts a dozen smaller groceries sending them out of business, meaning that anyone who wants groceries now needs a car to get across the giant government mandated parking lot.
Theft has nothing to do with it and your attempts to link the two are pathetic.
I am honestly surprised it's not already an epidemic of mass robberies over mass shootings. As the divide between rich and poor widens, more and more people are bound to become outraged as they're backed into a corner. I don't condone this, I just see it as one of of the natural consequences of our predicament.
Again I don't condone this and don't necessarily believe this was the reasoning behind what happened, but no it's not wiser to steal food over luxury goods if your intent is to feed your starving family for the foreseeable future. With one handful you can leave with $10k from that store. This is why they were dragging the purses that were basically fused to the display racks. A single purse might be $3k. So a thousand times the price of a loaf of bread. If you already made the decision that you're stealing to support your family, are you going to want to do it every other day, or are you going to want to grab one purse that feeds your family for a month?
They’re not going to get anywhere near retail value for those, and robbery like this vs petty larceny is punished more harshly.
So is bear spraying a security guard. He’s probably not rich, and if you get caught, you’re not feeding your family anything for a long time.
Anyway I know you said you don’t necessarily believe that was the reason, but I just didn’t like the implication that poor people would gather 20-50 like minded friends to ransack a store and potentially hurt people to steal designer bags. I know some people, when pushed far enough, will resort to robbery but the number and willingness to harm for a commodity that’s difficult to sell feels like typical organized crime. Not your intention and maybe I’m reading too much into it, but I feel like associating poor people for large scale crime like this only makes things worse for them societally.
It doesn't matter that they won't get anywhere near the 100k worth of the items. They still grabbed far more value with a single purse than they could ever clutch running out of a Whole Foods.
I forgot that already biased people could use this as just another reason to hate the poor. First they want to steal a loaf of bread, now they want luxury goods worth many loaves, right? Except this isn't an evil poor mentality, it's a human mentality. Bear spraying the guard that is standing in your way isn't a poor thing, it's a criminal thing. No one is spraying guards because they are rich.
The reality is that if these people were in the top 1%, there's no chance they'd have resorted to this, and would instead conduct their thieving unmasked in a cozy office chair. We can't know where exactly this mob falls in the bottom 99%, and my point is that with the increasing divide between rich and poor, it's becoming less relevant where they fall.
We can't allow our voices to be silenced for fear of someone else twisting them in hatred.
I get that and largely agree, but I still feel it’s unfair to associate the mass robbery alone with poor person things. All of this is my personal opinion and I’ll repeat that a lot to emphasize that I’m not saying anything as fact.
The message of “this looting isn’t surprising given the increased divide between the rich and the poor,” to me, is already bridging the gap for opportunistic bad actors. While we shouldn’t be silent, it’s worth noting that some words may do more harm than good. In my eyes, the potential gain is minuscule (most people know that desperation begets desperate acts) and the inverse is high (very few people in the country this happened in will agree with a violent robbery, especially one of this scale). Outside of the unique ecosystem of Lemmy, that comment would be good ammo for bad actors and a bad supporting statement for good arguments.
And yeah, some of it is simply that I personally don’t like associating poor with a crime like this.
Anyway, beyond that I don’t disagree with the primary point, merely how it was presented. I also doubt there’s anything that would make me feel more comfortable with that association, but fortunately the opinion of one random person doesn’t matter and that saves you time responding. Be well!
The message of “this looting isn’t surprising given the increased divide between the rich and the poor,” to me, is already bridging the gap for opportunistic bad actors.
BREAKING NEWS: Bad Actors twist what research suggests! In a shocking turn of events, opportunistic Bad Actors claim "Poor people bad!" after an internet forum user points out what research has already said ages ago; that violent crimes are correlated to income inequality. The user went on to point out that this is the fault of billionaires, but the Bad Actors were unrelenting.
Holding me personally accountable for real life is you being unfair. Be well, too. Careful the bad actors don't get to your words, next!
No, if you’re already cool with stealing, it makes way more sense to steal high value items to fence for the cash to spend on all your needs. One robbery might net you food, gas, and some rent money.
Steal food and all those other things are still a need. Also you are limited to the food you can actually steal.
I’ll admit I’m not too familiar with crime, but I can’t see them getting anywhere near face value for any of these things. And I wouldn’t want to go down for larceny in the amount thousands + violent robbery + potential culpability regarding the harmed security guard.
I rescind the comment if it really is that easy to sell high value stolen items. Just assumed pawn shops would be suspicious, eBay would have too large a paper trail, and selling them individually is difficult and time consuming.
You really really don’t need a business to fence things in 2023. It’s also safe to assume that a group that can coordinate a robbery like this one likely has put the effort in to coordinate where the loot is going.
Yeah fair I hadn’t thought that far into it and would make a pretty poor criminal. I was also mentally framing it as a need-to-eat situation where I presume most don’t have the resources to coordinate the loot sale. But organized crime does need to eat too.
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.