Who says “very frightened”? They just say “terrified”, which is surprisingly NOT what the infographic recommends! And “very perfect” is just nonsense. So is “very well-to-do”, which feels like they worked backwards instead of figuring out what “very wealthy” would be.

These guys need to proofread their own work, I guess.

It’s completely in context. We have the complete context. It’s in response to an AI generated walk cycle, and he specifically called out the technology as something he never wants to work with. The people he spoke to said they wanted to make an AI that can draw like humans do, which is how generative AI is described.

Boooooo!

You broke the rules with a bait post. You got told off. You then posted this TWELVE times in unrelated communities hoping for support. Each one has a mass of downvotes. Stop trying to play the victim and just take the damn L.

I learned this from the paw patrol copaganda video on youtube, which does site sources, so you can go from there.

To elaborate for anyone reading this who doesn’t know:

Dogs are really good at noticing emotion in humans, better than they are at noticing the scent of contraband. When an officer wants a dog to alert, the dog picks up on it and alerts, even when there’s nothing there.

There was even a study where they would have a dog try to find out which packages had drugs in. When the officer was fooled, the dog was significantly more likely to be fooled too than when trying to fool only the dog. The officers responded by refusing to continue the experiment.

Yeah, people can be stupid, but they can be less stupid if they know the things they should know. Hence this post.

It is explicitly against the rules, yes. In another community, I’d be all for this.

There are still things that can be done. Elon would really like it if you thought it was hopeless to stop him, because then you wouldn’t try. He is just a human. If enough people actually tried to stop him, he wouldn’t be able to resist.

For clarity, a lot of the things we can do to stop him aren’t strictly legal, especially with the law in the hands they are. Some of the ways that would work are ones I shouldn’t endorse in a public space. But we do still have options.

You do know that’s not a reliable source, right? Anyone could add an excuse to the list. There’s a button right on the page. It doesn’t ask for evidence to support it, just an opinion.

And the topic is so incredibly leading that the only reason you’d be on that page is if you’re looking for reasons to support an opinion you already had.

I wanna say The Producers. So many works trying to demonise Nazis falls into the trap that demons are kinda cool, but Springtime for Hitler is so ridiculous that no matter how pro-Nazi the lyrics are, you can only laugh at them. And watching Hitler throw it back is just peak theatre.

I wasn’t talking about the “Luigi” comment. I was talking about the “did nothing wrong” comment. The “Luigi” comment can be seen as a call to violence, but the “did nothing wrong” comment was just a sign of support, not a call to violence. And the “did nothing wrong” comment was removed FIRST.

I fully understand what you’re saying. You’re just wrong.

I’m not sure why you claim I’m being vague when I directly quote an entire comment.

You said “it’s against the terms of service, so the comment gets removed”. I pointed to a comment that did NOT violate terms of service, but got removed. You defended the instance with a faulty statement. All I did was point it out.

And no, it wasn’t a call to violence. If the statement was “we need more Luigis”, then THAT’s a call to violence. Just saying “he did nothing wrong” is the same as saying you hope he gets a jury nullification. It’s just taking his side.

about post admin clarification

So, you want how things are being run today? Great. A comment was removed 22 hours ago that simply said “Luigi did nothing wrong”, and the reason given was “wrongful advocacy”. Check the modlogs.

There is currently a mod who doesn’t understand things and is removing some comments they shouldn’t. Present tense.

Incorrect. A comment was removed that simply said “Luigi did nothing wrong”, which aligns with your first example. The reason given was “wrongful advocacy”, which suggests having a positive opinion of Luigi is against TOS.

If it should work as you described, it seems the mods are confused too.

No, I’m from the Shire, and Mordor doesn’t exactly make conversation with us.

But I pay notice to the black smoke. To the Nazgul strikes and the fires of war. I can feel his dark eye watching us all from atop his wasteland tower, whispiering lies and doubt into innocent ears. I hear a poison tongue speaking wicked words into the ear of a decrepit leader, making him but a puppet. I see a war chief turn on his master in a bid for power, only to be cowed and granted a traitor’s reward.

I look to the east, and see Mordor.

But everything you said about Mordor could apply to Russia.

Imagine an apartment building. The landlord decides the local city council is too overbearing, and decides to move to a different city. They expect the tenants to move with them.

Problem 1: The local city is known for inclusivity, and the new city is known for being overpopulated and having an overbearing city council. Either the landlord has sinister motives or didn’t do their research.

Problem 2: The tenants weren’t told of the move before the moving van came, and were given no opportunity to weigh in on the decision. The landlord was calling all the shots.

Problem 3: The landlord sealed the building as they moved, making it impossible for someone else to take over as landlord and keep the building running. There was really no reason to do that.

This went about as smoothly as you’d expect. While the landlords did eventually unseal the building, a lot of people completely lost faith in them and moved into a new apartment building in the same city, but with a new landlord ( !onehundredninetysix@lemmy.blahaj.zone ).

They don’t get a cut, they get a wage. That wage is as low as it is because of lobbying from wealthy fucks, and they can reduce it to 0 by firing you with flimsy reasoning. The workers make the rich rich, and the rich makes the workers poor.

Customers want goods cheap, but they’re really bad at noticing what’s cheap and what’s manipulative. JC Penny tried to remove sales and just offer cheaper clothes, but people wanted more expensive clothes with a 50% off label on it. Shops will inflate the price on a luxury item to make a lower-priced item look reasonable, even if the lower price is still inflated.

Absolutely yes. I just need a partner to have them with, which is easier said than done.