You’re literally doing what I just described.

This headline can easily be part of an intended effort to associate the luigie situation with any shooting of a CEO or business leader. Reasons matter. Protecting luigie means enforcing strict conceptual differentiating between him and other acts of violence. We know there’s a difference, we need to enforce that difference in every space the topic comes up. As soon as Luigie is successfully lumped in with random acts of violence, he loses the public sentiment that is his best protection.

Funny how its always so important to ban useful and empowering things for citizens in the name of safety but someone we can’t ban business practices that cause mass extinctions, change the climate, impoverish the working class or kill enough of us to only be seen as a statistic instead of people. If they actually cared about safety, they would be banning the things that cause mass suffering and death, not VPNs. We should be opposed to these kinds of bans on the principle that it further disempowered us so we are less able to deal with the threats of all the mass suffering and death that they refuse to keep us safe from.

Making sure you pay the absolute most possible for everything you buy. Welcome to tyranny capitalism. You will be charged a poor tax in the form of optimised pricing exploitation.

K.

So one group has trained for decades to heal the sick and provide guidance to be more healthy and the other spent it’s time learning how to take as much as possible from their customers.

Which one is more likely to align with the patient’s interest?

So somewhere they feel safe to do so. Says something pretty fucked up about our culture that men don’t feel safe to open up anywhere. And no, it’s not their own fault.

Consumer activism kills businesses and products regularly. We call it ‘trends’.

But manufacturing a boycott for long enough to work is almost certainly going to fail. But like you say, it has a role to play, just not by itself. It must be an action used with precision as part of a larger strategy. We have plenty of tools, but nobody puts them together. It’s always an isolated boycott that flairs up and inevitably fades away. The company just waits it out. We also can’t boycott necessities, and that’s where they really get us. Consumer activism doesn’t work all in those cases.

Of course we have to have a way to manually check the training data, in detail, as well. Not reading the book, im just verifying training data.

Yet we keep empowering them with every purchase we make and half of the consumer base will never see an issue doing so. Some purchases we have no choice but to make, and that’s where they really have control of our lives. They seized the means of production, distribution and access of things necessary for life and leverage access to those necessities for access to more parts of our private lives. The majority appear to be naive morons who will happily sell all of us down the river for more camera filters and some pretty shoes. Basically, toys. We are losing our rights, our privacy, and control of our lives in exchange for toys…

We will take the entire library of human knowledge, cleans it, and ensure our version is the only record available.

The only comfort I have is knowing anything that is true can be relearned by observing reality through the lense of science, which is itself reproducible from observing how we observe reality.

Nothing better than having a private conversation with my friends and having some dude lean in to remind us that Brawndo, the thirst mutilator, has electrolytes.

You have NASA FFS. Just fund it.

They will always want you to watch more ads. Doesn’t matter that you literally pay them not to. Manipulating your purchase habits is more profitable than your subscription is because your tolerance for ads sets the amount they can sell.

No idea how that will turn out. Fully auto, but you have to maintain the vehicle and ensure it’s road worthy as the owner.

Depends on the issue at hand. To get these approved and widespread, better than humans may be the bar.

But does it do it less often than humans?

How is this possibly going to be tolerated in business environments?

Stuff like this makes women seem incredibly judgemental, while also demanding to not be judged.