Sure but there are a ton of things, genetic, environmental, dietary, neurochemical, etc. that can contribute to the development of cancer. You can do literally everything right and end up in the exact same place as someone who did all the wrong things because the causes are innumerable and many are literally unavoidable.

Would I regret my choices if I got cancer after I did all the things the studies say would increase my odds? Of course I would. Would I regret my choices if did everything “right” and still got cancer? Of course I would. But that’s because being in that position inherently biased you against your past. If I did all the wrong things I would regret that I indulged too much, and if I did all the right things I would regret that I never really indulged at all and enjoyed life fully. Either way you got shafted. You’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

But to me it’s better to just live intentionally but without having this constant concern about every single thing I eat, drink, or breath maybe, possibly, eventually contributing to developing cancer. Like I’m not about to start smoking, I rarely drink, I try to eat enough veggies, etc. because those things have much more tangible direct consequences that I’m mindful of, and I’m not about to eat a hotdog every day mostly because I’m a really good cook and that sounds sad as fuck. But the next time I do eat a hotdog, a salami, or a Reuben sandwich, I promise you that no part of my mind is going to be worrying that it will give me cancer. Constant dread is its own form of cancer and life’s too short and uncertain to live with that shit 24/7.

No no no, you’re all wrong. It goes Agles, Beagles, Seagulls, Deegles, Eagles, etc. We’ve proven the existence of 3 of these species already, but the search continues for these other mysterious creatures the certainly must exist. In this TED Talk, I will…

Captain Planet Gull: “Give me those chips and I’ll poop on you!”

You: “… don’t you mean ‘or’ you will poop on me, not ‘and’?”

Captain Planet Gull: …

You: …

Is that the Gallaghers’ house from Shameless? That does feel like the sort of stance Frank would take.

Am I the only one that thought Boyhood was overrated? Like the meta of the movie is unique and impressive, for sure. It’s an incredible idea to film a movie following the development of a kid into adulthood in real time, and the perseverance to make it is laudable. But… I found the movie that resulted felt like… well like someone who had an idea for a movie 11 years ago and kept changing the plan along the way without being able to change what’s already filmed. It felt messy and disjointed. Not like it is terrible, but I have no interest in watching it ever again. Certainly not in my to 30 movies of all time.

Funny because that sounds to me like the "illegals"can’t be illegal then. Sounds like they’re not subject to the law anymore.

… K.

Seems like a stretch of a joke, but aiight.

“Ford Dodger”? Are you intentionally messing up the make and model of his car? Is this a sort of joke I’m not getting? Ford and Dodge are different car manufacturers and the Dodgers are a baseball team. I dont even know why you’re are referring to its make and model (twice) in your post in the first place. I know it doesn’t really matter, but it sounds like an old person calling every video game console a “Nintendo Genesis”. If that’s the goal, kudos.

“In just 4 easy payments…”

Be careful what you wish for…

Dude, how does anyone not know that Stephen Miller is a literal fucking Nazi?

Linux developers can’t name their products any better than they name their variables.

“Programming done, time to publish, now it just needs a name…” briefly pauses, then smashes face into keyboard… “There! … ehh, no, still missing something.” clicks random spot, types X… “Perfect! Send it!”

They hurt like a bitch too. Swam across one while snorkeling in Florida a few months ago. Had a couple tentacles wrapped around my arm. Not fun. And flared up again 2 weeks later. Also not fun.

You love it until you steal a dorito from Tim the Dorito Samurai!

For those too young to recognize this 15 year old commercial: https://youtu.be/_A0tUF_k9gc

but in the English speaking world I’d say it’s the most unique name I’ve heard.

Probably because it actually a French surname, which is itself based on a place name in France that no longer exists… and it is not her actual given name, but something she adopted from a character in The Great Gatsby.

You do realize that the impeachment isn’t the goal, right? It’s just the first step. If you want to forcibly remove Trump while he’s still alive, you only have 2 options. 1) You need Vance and half of Trump’s cabinet to formally deem him incapable of executing the powers of the office and replacing him with Vance under the 25th amendment and then (when Trump pushes back) have 2/3rds of both houses of congress vote to agree he’s incapable. Or 2) Have a majority of the House vote to impeach him, and then have 2/3rds of he Senate vote to convict, which will result in his removal from office. Impeachment isn’t just a formal scolding. That’s called a censure. It’s an indictment of a crime that will then be tried in the Senate. In both cases of impeachment last time, the spineless Senate voted to acquit. But that doesnt mean that they won’t ever break ranks or that in voting to acquit they may lose votes as a result.

No it’s a tool, created and used by people. You’re not treating the tool like a person. Tools are obviously not subject to laws, can’t break laws, etc… Their usage is subject to laws. If you use a tool to intentionally, knowingly, or negligently do things that would be illegal for you to do without the tool, then that’s still illegal. Same for accepting money to give others the privilege of doing those illegal things with your tool without any attempt at moderating said things that you know is happening. You can argue that maybe the law should be more strict with AI usage than with a human if you have a good legal justification for it, but there’s really no way to justify being less strict.

It’s pretty simple as I see it. You treat AI like a person. A person needs to go through legal channels to consume material, so piracy for AI training is as illegal as it would be for personal consumption. Consuming legally possessed copywritten material for “inspiration” or “study” is also fine for a person, so it is fine for AI training as well. Commercializing derivative works that infringes on copyright is illegal for a person, so it should be illegal for an AI as well. All produced materials, even those inspired by another piece of media, are permissible if not monetized, otherwise they need to be suitably transformative. That line can be hard to draw even when AI is not involved, but that is the legal standard for people, so it should be for AI as well. If I browse through Deviant Art and learn to draw similarly my favorite artists from their publically viewable works, and make a legally distinct cartoon mouse by hand in a style that is similar to someone else’s and then I sell prints of that work, that is legal. The same should be the case for AI.

But! Scrutiny for AI should be much stricter given the inherent lack of true transformative creativity. And any AI that has used pirated materials should be penalized either by massive fines or by wiping their training and starting over with legally licensed or purchased or otherwise public domain materials only.

Unfortunately, he’s a clinical narcissist, so he really does genuinely have the ability to completely delude himself over his own superiority regardless of all evidence to the contrary. He genuinely believes he’s a genius, an intimidating presence, a great deal maker, a popular person with the general public, that he won all 3 elections, and even that he’s seen as a sex symbol. He does not live in objective reality in regards to his own attributes, or much else for that matter. It’s all delusion. And that’s before the dementia started setting in.