no good reason

We don’t accept states that are actively committing a genocide or that have leaders with active ICC warrants.

Oh you meant good reasons that can be stated by corpo politicians with a phobia of stating facts that may be interpreted as anything close to antizionism. Fair play

So we are cutting off military aid to Israel then, right? Right?

Not saying this is you, but for a very long time, the moderate argument is, “we can’t get a total victory here, so we shouldn’t bother resisting Republicans” and, frankly, I’m done with that line of thinking. If it makes Republicans life harder, it must be done. If they have to explain to their voting base why they aren’t willing to make ICE agents unmask in order to keep TSA staffed at airports, that is worth making them do. I don’t expect a miracle, I expect a spine

Jeffries’ best quality is that the two easiest people to compare him to are Chuck Schumer and Mike Johnson and that, despite his best efforts, even he fails to limbo under those bars on a regular basis

God, there’s so much wrong with the reality behind that headline. Megadonors shouldn’t be a thing. Donors with major business before the government should especially not be megasized because of the conflict of interest. Super PACs shouldn’t exist. The president should not have a Super PAC

I don’t know the specifics for this reported case, and I’m not interested in learning them, but I know part of the controversy with the grok deep fake thing when it first became a big story was that Grok was starting to add risqué elements to prompted pictures even when the prompt didn’t ask for them. But yeah, if users are giving shitty prompts (and I’m sure too many are), they are equally at fault with Grok’s devs/designers who did not put in safeguards to prevent those prompts from being actionable before releasing it to the public

That is what they mean by it, but the fact they chose to express it as “not tolerating discrimination” as opposed to “not discriminating” or “not engaging in discrimination” really highlights that they are engaging in the social contract of tolerance with entities that are explicitly breaking said contract. This kind of weak willed “inclusion” for the sake of virtue signalling/profit is part of what makes fascists think that the paradox of tolerance is some killer argument against empathy

We do not tolerate any form of discrimination apparently means We provide hospitality to the worst perpetrators of discrimination

The real victims of imperialism are the tourism industry and its customers /s

Hyperbole. Yeah, that’s what that was. Totally. Just some overexaggeration for dramatic effect.

Nintendo’s legal department wants to know your location

Alternative way to phrase it, we don’t train humans to be ego-satiating brown nosers, we train them to be (often poor) judges of character. AI would be just as nice to David Duke as it is to you. Also, “they” is anthropomorphizing LLM AI much more than it deserves, it’s not even a single identity, let alone a set of multiple identities. It is a bundle of hallucinations, loosely tied together by suggestions and patterns taken from stolen data

People are literally murdered IRL for being LGBTQ+. I haven’t seen that be brought up as an argument against having a LGBTQ+ tag on Steam. I think AI users will be OK

The giant AI banner ad inserted in the middle of this article about “unlocking AI” is just chef’s kiss

Trump Derangement Syndrome. It is/was a derogatory term used by MAGAts when sane people expressed concern about putting a pedophile who attempted to violently overturn an election in charge of the government rather than holding him and his enablers accountable

He Mr. Gay

Episode 4 of Star Wars

A concerning amount of investor money in the market is riding on the wellbeing of a few big tech companies. And it got that way because the absurd valuations of those companies is built on speculation that AI will change the economy and company X will benefit from that for reason Y. When it becomes clear that either AI will not change the economy or that company X will not benefit greatly from said changes, that valuation will pop and investor assets will lose value. I’d call that a bubble

Putting aside the hypothetical about which side benefitted more from appeasement, what’s the equivalent here? Give Trump everything he wants and hope that he let’s you still have an honest election in 2026? 2028? Hope that he leaves office after two terms when his biggest projects seem to be adding jets and ballrooms to his taste? Hope that he keeps over and dies? And what are you willing to give up for those hopes? Martial law in Chicago? An NYC mayor who’s more focused on feeling up his secretaries than on addressing the cost of living crisis? Mass deportation of American citizens? Forced and intentional starvation of American citizens? Destruction and corporate capture of our federal institutions? Obliteration of the rule of law? Continued support for genocide in the Middle East and abandonment of our allies in Europe and across the globe? Where’s your Poland and what are you trading Czechoslovakia for?

So, affirmative action for the straights, guess MAGA no longer thinks AA is discriminatory lol