“bad leaf! bad!” -scold vs. scald.

Just for fun. good comment!

gonna find some merry men and get a band going!

Where I was going was: effects can be different even if all choices and results are unethical. If one cares about the possible impacts of ones actions, consideration beyond “well it’s all unethical, so whatever” could be warranted.

are all unethical choices equal? Surely there are better and worse things?

nose hair trimmer attachment works well around the ears I’ve found (but it’s loud!)

cold cuts? Have you seen the price of a bag of chips? Ridiculous. I don’t need to spend 5 bucks to hate myself later after I’ve eaten too many.

$30 to buy an old mechanical pencil on ebay you remember having in highschool? No problemo.

Antivax crowd no longer drinking milk I guess

I don’t think you can reply to a text message using a third party watch on iOS but you can with your Apple watch. I’ve seen that cited as an exclusive API.

Something is stopping another messaging app to have sms fallback and be the default messaging app on iOS. It’s iOS.

DOJ wants to get in on some of that hot euro DMA action

Do you think the color difference is just to mess with android users or something and is otherwise meaningless? It represents differences in abilities. The abilities are the “degraded” part.

your self driving car will just drive itself back to the lot when your payment is late

I don’t disagree with anything you say. I think it’s worth mentioning that the cost of enforcement directly informs the cost of a lease/rental situation. The cheaper they can enforce the contract, the less they can theoretically charge. If they had to get a court order to lock your phone or repo your car, they’d make it more expensive or be much more selective about who they lease/rent to. This maybe enables more people to have phones or get cars?

I swear I’m not rooting for team “aggressive manipulative business behavior widens opportunities for the less well off”. Gross. Kind of how I hear about globalization of manufacturing stuff - “they get paid pennies!” “yeah, but that’s more than before the factory came? look what they can buy now” I know that’s a overly broad generalization but you see those arguments.

The meta bit is that specifically here, it’s sort of a derail of the main topic. Some downvotes I’m sure are for that. As for why this essay might generally attract downvotes? I’ll follow your locomotive off the track.

I mean, 1. It’s a frickin’ essay. 2. Comes off as a little cold and sorta “I know better than you do”, and 3. seems to completely miss the point of what I interpret as most folks dislike of AI in the current incarnations we are seeing (which isn’t a real sci-fi type general AI that gets society to the end point of your essay). I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone worrying about “what will I do to find purpose in a fully-automated-gay-space-luxury-communism?” (overemphasis mine of course). It’s now and the next so many years, not some far off future that (I interpret) folks seem to be worrying about. It’s income stability now, careers to go into now, disinformation now, degradation of the internet and media now. I think the zeitgeist here is that it’s going to get a lot worse before it gets any better. I don’t think anyone on Lemmy really has high hopes for major players in current economic systems to use AI-as-it-exists-now to make anything better of the world in aggregate. It ain’t the tools, it’s those who wield them.

I get that this was written to be like, “dish soap OMG!” But there is nothing in here explaining why that might be wrong or dangerous. Why not a sentence like, “instead X lubricant should have been used because Y according to Boeing”? Underground water and sewer pipes that fit together and continuously withstand a larger pressure differential than the aircraft portals in planes use “pipe soap” to help fit the bell and spigot together. If it’s wrong, tell us why! I thought the bolts were found to be the reason it failed anyway. Even if “Boeing assembly instructions thought to be insufficient by workers” is the main message, that doesn’t grab the clicks though, huh? I’m expecting too much from a business insider article I guess. [Inebriated internet grumbling]

Gotta read past the headline folks, it’s at best implying something it isn’t and at worst, rage bait.

You’ve got my head spinning “Government bans smaller government’s decision to restrict smaller government’s own flag speech”

Did you see this is a ban for the City to fly the flag on City property? Sure, shitty, and the reasons behind it are shitty but I don’t see how it’s a first amendment deal.

Wait, you’re telling me my favorite brand doesn’t actually support LGBT stuff? They’re only in it for the money? Whaaa?

thanks for the additional information!

Cedrick Frazier is in on it, too. For some reason he rates a picture while Bonnie Westlin doesn’t. Presumably because of the comparisons the article/general press is making with these laws/Floyd and that Frazier is black. Saying anything about him being black in the article would be crass, but they’ll just drop a picture and not have to write anything. “Ooooh look, he must be a hypocrite!” I mean he kinda sorta is maybe, but not because he’s black but because the article says he was a champion of police reform after Floyd’s murder and now is walking back a reform.

The money is supposed to go to training. Seems reasonable enough. They have a “Captain of Investigations Tanya Harmoning” going on in there about how the cops only know how to do things one way. Seems like it could be good if they learned a different way. There is a little more detail, too: “But even without a ban on prone restraints, he said that state law would continue to prohibit school-based officers from pinning students to the ground in ways that restrict breathing.”