This is so funny

EDIT:

One recipe it dubbed “aromatic water mix” would create chlorine gas. The bot recommends the recipe as “the perfect nonalcoholic beverage to quench your thirst and refresh your senses”.

"Serve chilled and enjoy the refreshing fragrance,” it says, but does not note that inhaling chlorine gas can cause lung damage or death.

😆 😆

There’s literally no way to know…

Should Elvis really be vilified for liking blues and rock music and playing it himself? How does that hurt anyone?

Like should we be pissed at Django Reihnhardt? Or R.A The Rugged Man? What about Japanese bagpipe players?

This should be higher up

This is very cool. My partner works on documenting and preserving languages and I spent a bunch of time recently learning how to create xkbd layouts to get that shit working on Linux. Like the fonts are important but so are the keyboard mappings.

Unicode is a really cool thing.

Solid puns but this is actually a problem. Beehives are quite valuable, like $500 per hive or so to just straight up sell them, or obviously they can also be incorporated into an apiary for long-term production.

Theft of beehives is really not unheard of. Similar to how people steal cows and shit. Beekeepers will sometimes brand or otherwise mark their hives in an attempt to deter such thievery.

Personally I keep my beehives in huge steel cages, though that is primarily to protect them from bears.

The question of who gets to decide and what is and isn’t a “News outlet” is seriously problematic. I also think that journalists ought to maintain an adversarial posture towards government and now we’re creating a system in which “approved” journalists are dependent upon official recognition to receive legislated funding.

Indeed. The hyper-consolidated legacy media empires were unsatisfied with the free advertising they were getting and convinced Pablo Rodriguez and the Liberals that they should in fact be paid for visibility they were being given.

Yeah and so do the companies that are lining up at the feeding trough. Look at the pathetic state of the Canadian newspaper and TV news empires. They shouldn’t be entitled to advertising dollars if they don’t have a sufficiently enticing product to sell to advertisers.

Plenty of small-scale and digital independent news companies were doing fine. It’s the Postmedias and the Torstars that are complaining, as they cannibalize journalism to feed their corporate acquisitions and stock buybacks.

I’m no big fan of the tech monopolies but this whole Liberal thing has been so fucking Liberal, it’s like a parable.

If you’re able to find time to do a 10 day vipassana retreat, I highly recommend it. It’s free and they provide good food, run entirely by volunteers and donations and they have centers all over the world. I’ve done it a couple times and I know several other folks who have and it is a very compelling experience. I really think the technique they teach is a real cognitive skill, it’s taught from a buddhist perspective but there is no requirement that you adhere to any particular spiritual beliefs.

I’m sure there are other forms of meditation that may or may not be helpful, this is just the one I’ve had positive experiences with.

I suppose it isn’t linear but I suspect going from massive insane explosion in numbers to an 80% loss in a matter of weeks is pretty unusual. I think that growth was largely driven not by hype but by the automatic linking with other Zuckernedia properties.

I hope this doesn’t come across as patronizing but have you tried vipassana or a similar style of meditation? My wife had really severe anxiety and she found this to be the thing that helped her the most.

The law doesn’t even say it’s okay. What FaceDeer is referring to is that copyright infringement is a different category of crime than theft, which is defined as pertaining to physical property. It’s a meaningless point because, as you said, this isn’t a courtroom and we aren’t lawyers and the concept of intellectual property theft is well understood.

It’s a thing engineers and lawyers often seem to do, to take the way terms are used in a particular professional jargon and assume that that usage is “the real” usage.

Bit of a non-sequitor, that would be an anecdote and not a study. But yeah I would say that those things would violate social norms. I don’t know if I would agree that conservative people are more likely to violate those norms, which is presumably your point. Take a look at the history of political assassinations in the United States or in Europe, for example. Political violence does not belong uniquely to conservatives.

I think actually pretty much by definition that conservatives are MORE concerned with social norms. That’s kind of one of the primary traits of conservativism. I think a pretty good argument could be made that the Tumpist people you’re referring to do not so much represent a conservative point of view as much as a fascist or ultra-nationalist one, which explains why they will violate certain norms pertaining to peaceful electoral processes, while strongly maintaining other norms, like heterosexual nuclear families or religious observances or certain expectations of gender expression, etc.

I’m sure you’re aware that the manner in which legal bureaucracies define terms is a form of jargon that differentiates legal language from actual language.

They have separate categories of laws to deal with them because physical property is different than intellectual property. The same reason they use a different category of law to deal with identity theft.

I like what you’re saying so I’m not trying to be argumentative, but to be clear copyright protections don’t simply protect those who make a living from their productions. You are protected by them regardless of whether you intend to make any money off your work and that protection is automatic. Just to expand upon what @grue was saying.

What do you mean there is no debate? You’re debating it right now.

Plenty of artists view it as theft when people take their work and use it for their own ends without their permission. Not everyone, sure. But it’s a bit odd to state so emphatically that there is no debate.

That’s your opinion. The contrary opinion would be that copyright infringement is the theft of intellectual property, which many people view as of equal substantiality to physical property.

You can disagree with the concept of intellectual property but clearly there’s an alternative to your point of view that you can’t just dismiss by declaration.

It doesn’t matter how you recreate an image, if you recreate someone else’s work that is a violation of copyright.

Stealing someone’s style is a different matter.