Seems to me that a defense attorney would have a rather more difficult time claiming that “gluten free” is a cooking style, and that x food contains gluten by definition.
On the other hand, this via Ohio, so… Such a holding wouldn’t particularly shock me either.
I wonder how bad their financials are if the CEO is publicly speaking out about this problem.
Chipotle used to be my favorite restaurant, but the last time I ate there was probably 2019. It just stopped being worth the effort of trying to get a full bowl.
It shouldn’t really require effort. If I wanted to expend effort, I would cook this shit at home. Which is what I actually do do, because fuck fast food price gouging.
I stopped going there after they required ordering via their app. Not sure if that was a policy everywhere or just around here. I use apps to order at a lot of places, but I'd tried using the Chipotle app previously and found both smaller portions and that their error rate was higher than I was willing to deal with. If I can't walk in and watch my order being made so I can make sure it's correct, sorry, I'll go somewhere else.
Was that during COVID? I regularly eat Chipotle around the US and I’ve never encountered this requirement, I always order at the counter so it is fresh.
Yeah, that's when the requirement started. I'd tried the app before that and that was when I decided I wouldn't use it. They kept the policy around long enough for me to completely give up on them. Not actually sure if it's still a thing around here. Not super urgent for me to find out. I go to Pancheros now for a quick service burrito analogue.
I want to know what they did with the rice? Like it’s mushy and or has the wrong flavor. I think it used to have some lime juice in it, but now the rice being bad just overpowered the whole thing.
Coincidentally, 2019 is when they got a new CEO, laid off almost all the corporate personnel and moved from Denver to Newport Beach. Weird that decapitating the company would have an effect on it…
I double-checked the article's comments page from your instance's website, and it seems to be displaying correctly. If you are using a mobile app, you may want to consider filing a bug report with the author.
It seems like the bill is being pitched as protecting women who have fake nudes passed around their school but the text of the bill seems more aimed at the Taylor swift case.
1 The bill only applies where there is an “intent to distribute”
2 The bill talks about damages being calculated based on the profit of the defendant
The bill also states that you can’t label the image as AI generated or rely on the context of publication to avoid running afoul of this law. That seems at odds with the 1st amendment.
The bill only applies where there is an “intent to distribute”
That’s a predicate for any law bound to the Commerce Clause. You need to demonstrate the regulation is being applied to interstate traffic. Anything else would be limited to state/municipal regulations.
The bill talks about damages being calculated based on the profit of the defendant
That’s arguably a better rule than the more traditional flat-fee penalties, as it curbs the impulse to treat violations as cost-of-business. A firm that makes $1B/year isn’t going to blink at a handful of $1000 judgements.
The bill also states that you can’t label the image as AI generated or rely on the context of publication to avoid running afoul of this law.
A revenge-porn law that can be evaded by asserting “This isn’t Taylor Swift, its Tay Swiff and any resemblance of an existing celebrity is purely coincidental” would be toothless. We already apply these rules for traditional animated assets. You’d be liable for producing an animated short staring “Definitely Not Mickey Mouse” under the same reasoning.
This doesn’t prevent you from creating a unique art asset. And certainly there’s a superabundance of original pornographic art models and porn models generated with the consent of the living model. The hitch here is obvious, though. You’re presumed to own your own likeness.
My biggest complaint is that it only seems to apply to pornography. And I suspect we’ll see people challenge the application of the law by producing “parody” porn or “news commentary” porn. What the SCOTUS does with that remains to be seen.
That’s arguably a better rule than the more traditional flat-fee penalties, as it curbs the impulse to treat violations as cost-of-business. A firm that makes $1B/year isn’t going to blink at a handful of $1000 judgements.
No argument there but it reinforces my point that this law is written for Taylor swift and not a random high schooler.
You’d be liable for producing an animated short staring “Definitely Not Mickey Mouse” under the same reasoning.
Except that there are fair use exceptions specifically to prevent copyright law from running afoul of the first amendment. You can see the parody exception used in many episodes of south park for example and even specifically used to depict Mickey Mouse. Either this bill allows for those types of uses in which case it’s toothless anyway or it’s much more restrictive to speech than existing copyright law.
You keep referring to this as revenge porn which to me is a case where someone spreads nudes around as a way to punish their current or former partner. You could use AI to generate material to use as revenge porn, but I bet most AI nudes are not that.
Think about a political comic showing a pro-corporate politician performing a sex act with Jeff bezos. Clearly that would be protected speech. If you generate the same image with generative AI though then suddenly it’s illegal even if you clearly label it as being a parody. That’s the concern. Moreover, the slander/libel angle doesn’t make sense if you include a warning that the image is generated, as you are not making a false statement.
To sum up why I think this bill is kinda weird and likely to be ineffective, it’s perfectly legal for me to generate and distribute a fake ai video of my neighbor shooting a puppy as long as I don’t present it as a real video. If I generate the same video but my neighbor’s dick is hanging out, straight to jail. It’s not consistent.
where someone spreads nudes around as a way to punish their current or former partner
I would consider, as an example, a student who created a vulgar AI porn display of another student or teacher out of some sense of spite an example of “revenge porn”. Same with a coworker or boss trying to humiliate someone at the office.
Think about a political comic showing a pro-corporate politician performing a sex act with Jeff bezos.
That’s another good example. The Trump/Putin kissing mural is a great example of something that ends up being homophobic rather than partisan.
it’s perfectly legal for me to generate and distribute a fake ai video of my neighbor shooting a puppy
If you used it to slander your neighbor, it would not be legal.
It doesn’t really matter. Someone shot at him four to five times with an assault rifle and came pretty close. I couldn’t care less about what grazed his ear.
“We certainly know consumers are more wary — and weary — of pricing and we’re going to continue to be consumer-led in our pricing decisions as we look forward to 2024,” Chief Financial Officer Ian Borden said.
Edit: I keep coming back to this in my mind - thinking about this guy who will think this is a GREAT IDEA for two weeks. And then get home sans a finger.
Not even to mention the possible outcomes of the games. Anything could happen. Their team could be out in the first round (maybe because everyone didn’t have all their fingers at it hurt their play more than they expected!). There was also a fire on the trains earlier today in an arson attempt. I hate to think about it, but the Olympics have had bombs go off before, and what if the games are postponed for some reason. I really hope that doesn’t happen, but I’m just thinking about all these possibilities that could come up to make amputation even more dumb than it is right now.
I get that competitive spirit makes you do crazy things sometimes. But I will 100% predict - no matter what this guy says in the future - that when he’s 50, 60, 70…30 years + one month old he’s going to have the biggest regrets. It doesn’t even matter which finger - you use that finger more that you think. And there’s going to be something that is now worse. Shit, I’m typing this message and I’m using ALL my fingers. I can’t even imagine not having one.
The pinkie is a terrible one to lose. You don't realize how important it is until you are missing one. NerdForge had a great video on creating an artificial replacement for her missing pinkie. If I had a choice, the middle finger is a better one to lose and compensate for. Better, as in there isn't a good one to lose.
I find it somewhat shocking that the doctors agreed to amputate. You can’t force patients to make good decisions, but amputating a finger because he doesn’t want to wait for it to heal seems to go beyond what’s ethical. If he wasn’t going to be stopped from going regardless I guess you could make an argument it was harm reduction.
I would say letting a finger stop you from playing in the Olympics when you’re a hockey player and individual fingers aren’t all that necessary would be the sort of thing that would weigh on someone for years. Leading to clinical depression, in fact. I wouldn’t blame a doctor for doing it. As you said, harm reduction.
That said, this is his third Olympics, so I don’t know if that would be enough in this case.
Aside from the FOMO, if he had info from his doctor that the chance of regaining pain free use of the finger after the long recovery was low, then it’s just a personal choice to remove it. We can’t really relate to that.
At least those folks get some food. The chipotle near me tells people to order online and then does nothing until hours after the food was due and people complain.
Yo, humans need to get medieval on these reptilian motherfucker. Make them stand under the bones of 2 billion boneless chicken. If they are human, they will survive. If they are corporate shills, they will die. As they should.
Every so often when I was in high school, some kid would call in a bomb threat and everyone had to evacuate. This was in the early 90s, before most people had cell phones. They would probably do it from the pay phone at the front of the school. They almost certainly were kids from the school trying to get out of a test.
That’s a really stupid thing to do, but I understand why a kid would do it. This I don’t get. Why call schools in another state?
Some kids just are demented; not all kids, just some.
It’s kinda like that old “trick” of burning ants under a magnifying glass in the hot sun? At the time it made you feel powerful, but as you get older you reflect and realize how fucked up it was?
It’s just that taken to the extreme (just a guess at least)
Yeah, but I would still think he would do schools in his area so he could see the fallout more closely… however, someone else suggested they were convinced to do it to another school through people they met gaming online. That makes more sense to me.
Wasn’t it Don Jr that convinced his dad to pick Vance? Not that I think Trump concerns himself much with his family, but he’s going to have to throw someone under the bus for the decision to go with Vance in the first place. Don Jr might have to go back to being 5th favorite child.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.