

Not until after the trial.


Not until after the trial.


Never seen that anywhere before. I don’t think your ‘we’ is the same as our ‘we.’


If this is the simulation the entity that is running it is ineffably more complicated than you can possibly imagine with your tiny simulation of a brain.


Pepperidge Farms brand is owned by the Campbell’s Company. Here’s an article about how they’re embracing AI.
Also, what is that… what appears to be a baseball, but green with red stitching?
Second. Someone did the United Healthcare guy already.


In the same way a lot of bullshitters are. He’d say 105 things a week, many of them being mutually exclusive, and then when one of the random guesses happened to have turned out to be true, he’d crow and preen to say he was right and play a clip editing out the parts where he’d said all the other nonsense.
I imagine it’d be more like the kind of removal one gets from other natural causes, like frostbite or a bloodclot. I.e. painful and necrotic


That is so complex, it’s hard to point at all the contributing causes.


It means getting paid a special check equalling the amount extra you would have been paid if you had gotten the raise last year.


The technologies were/are not grifts. They were used as buzzwords to enable the grift of spending investor money.


That one gets you hunted and eaten by human predators in certain parts of America.


This feels especially hard because, broadly speaking, those who will be overly nice will be the more ‘normal’ people, which is the more useful group to get reviews from because their reactions would be more representative of the broader public, but the ones more likely to be brutally honest are more likely to be unusual people, who are less representative of the people you are most likely to meet on a day to day basis, so the reviews are less likely to be useful. The specific cross-section of willing to be honest and capable of providing useful insight seems somewhat limited.


Social anxiety is not neurodivergent. It’s more unusual to NOT think about how you are perceived. Asking the internet because you don’t trust people to be honest with you, though…


Assisted suicides do not consent to die. They request to die. They initiate the process themselves rather than allow the desire of others to dictate events. There is a subtle but important distinction.


Assisted suicide is suicide, performed by the dying individual. Assisting in a suicide is enabling a killing, but is not murder if done correctly. The one performing suicide is the active party, not simply granting consent to the actions of another.
To bring things back to the original point, rape and murder are covered by different ethical principles. Consent has no bearing on murder. Consent is definitive for rape.


The moral standing of a killing is completely unrelated to consent for most people. Most would say murder doesn’t become moral because the victim was suicidal. The killing itself is the basis for the moral stance, not the desires of the victim. The act is valued. Consent is neutral.
Sexual interaction is different. It does not necessitate a state change. It can be done to positive effect if done with consent. But animals, much like children, are viewed as insufficiently capable of granting consent. The consent is the basis for the moral stance, not the act itself. Consent is valued. The act is neutral.


Tastes change over time so I’ve never thought of it as a conversion. I used to think fish was disgusting. Then I aged and started liking it. I used to think asparagus was gross. Then I aged and started liking it. You probably ‘liked’ pasta salad for a while (as in you would have enjoyed eating it) before you had reason enough to try it again.
That’s probably a joke for legal reasons but I have to wonder how often someone like Vance thinks the phrase, ‘One little push…’