They did mention a name. Publicly available database called PimEyes apparently.
They did mention a name. Publicly available database called PimEyes apparently.
It’s in the article. Public database called PimEyes.
It doesn’t go into much more detail than that. Says it’s an open to the public face searching database.
That all sounds like it sucks, but I don’t think it’s as hopeless as I’m sure it feels.
Obviously this is just a snapshot into your life, and I’m sure there are more details under the hood, like what exact “adult responsibilities” and stuff you’ve got going on. That said, even in this text I think you’ve outlined a good bit of good stuff you’ve got going on.
First, I don’t know why you think conflict deescalation isn’t an absolutely in demand skill. Every job under the sun has conflict, and being able to manage that is huge. Even within Engineering, you could put that to huge use as a Sales Engineer or some other customer facing technical role.
Second, you got your bachelor’s in an engineering discipline. You can poo-poo your grades all you want, but at the end of the day you succeeded. No mean feat my man. That’s worth celebrating.
Finally, if you’re simply looking for a way out, there are institutions that are always looking for technical people. Obviously this is gonna vary a lot by country, so ymmv, but the government/military is always in need of people in technical roles, and rarely are able to fill them. It probably doesn’t pay nearly what a “normal” engineering job would, but it’d be more than an internship, and it would give you some of that structured camaraderie that you previously felt the lack of when trying to leave.
All that to say, don’t give up hope my guy. I know I’m just some schmuck on Lemmy of all places, but I think you’re capable of breaking out and getting to a better place.
You got this!
Genuine question, why not just walk away?
Like, it doesn’t solve the mental issues you’re already dealing with because of the years of trauma, but like, it seems like step one of healing would be to remove yourself from the situation, no?
Like, tell your dad he should probably get out, because you’re not gonna be there to play witness to keep him out of jail anymore, and then pop deuces?
I feel like we’re abusing “historical” here. Is this something of particular note that’s going to be taught to future generations?
Does the African American community know which president was the first to nominate twelve judges of color? Do women know which president was the first to nominate twelve women?
This is a good thing, but like, it’s a good fun fact at best. I think saying it’s “making history” is overstating. It’d be like saying the person who has the Guinness World Record for longest handstand is “making history.”
I feel like “making history” implies that they did something that’s gonna make it into the history books and be taught to future generations.
And like, maybe strictly, but like, which president appointed the twelfth black judge during their term? The twelfth female judge?
The first of anything, yeah, that’s in the history books. Everything past that, maybe a footnote.
A good thing for sure, but “making history”? The language feels strong to me.
This is great and all, but does the 12th time you do something count as “making history”?
You’d think after two or three you’d just stop counting.
Google doesn’t seem to find anything with that title when I Google it?
The Ash Tree seems to be some early 1900s story, and Daniel Harms doesn’t seem to have anything of that title as far as I can tell. :(
No, it was kind of a standalone type web forum. Greyish background, iirc.
Pretty sure I was linked it from Lemmy, and I don’t subscribe to no sleep here.
Well, not every metric. I bet the computers generated them way faster, lol. :P
To be clear, harassment and defamation are crimes in the US as well. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean that you can harm people with your speech with impunity. It’s a prohibition on the government from meddling with political speech, especially that of people who are detractors of the government.
I think the issue is that, while a country is certainly allowed to write it’s own laws, the idea that it is deeply fundamentally immoral for the government to prevent someone from saying something (or compel them to say something) is very deeply baked into the American zeitgeist (of which I am a part.)
So in the same way that a country is perfectly within its sovereign rights to pass a law that women are property or minorities don’t have the right to vote, I can still say that it feels wrong of them to do so.
And I would also decry a country that kicks out a company that chooses to employ women or minorities in violation of such a law, even if that is technically their sovereign right to do so.
Printing Nazi propaganda isn’t illegal in the US.
And I realize this isn’t in the US, obviously. But I think that the idea that the government shouldn’t be able to ban people from saying things, or compel them to say things, is so baked into the American zeitgeist (of which I am a member), that it feels wrong in a fundamental moral sense when it happens.
It’s the old, “I don’t agree with anything that man says, but I’ll defend to the death his right to say it,” thing.
I can see both sides on this one I think?
Out of curiosity, would you feel differently about this if it had been a print newsletter or physical book publisher that was printing Nazi propaganda that got shutdown because they refused to stop printing Nazi propaganda?
If so, what’s the substantive difference? If not, are you affirming banning people from publishing books based on ideological grounds?
Obviously banning books is bad, but obviously Nazis are bad, and that’s a hard square to circle.
I’m betting 5-4 in favor of throwing this out.
Gorsuch came down hard on Bostock, which makes me think he’d be skeptical of overturning Obergefell (which he wasn’t on the court to rule on originally).
Roberts is married to process well enough that I don’t think he can find it in himself to violate stare decisis on a case he was actually chief justice for, even if he did vote against the first time. Plus a lot has changed since 2015, and the court took a hard swing right. The dude has always kinda been that middle man referee, so I think that’s another drop in the “would shoot this down” bucket.
That only leaves Alito, Thomas, Kavenaugh, and Barrett. Alito and Thomas will always vote for the craziest possible position, so they’re right out. Kavenaugh and Barrett are more of a coin toss, but I lean towards them having their own, separate dissent if Bostock is any indication (which Kavenaugh dissented on, but not with Alito and Thomas. Barrett had yet to join.)
So my gut is that this isn’t going anywhere. I’d honestly be surprised if the supreme court even took it up.
Here’s the note taking and editors page of awesome-selfhosted. Looks like there are a few contenders in there. DailyTxT looks decent for your use case.
https://awesome-selfhosted.net/tags/note-taking--editors.html
Fair, and if the guy I responded to was saying that this was a grey area due to PP psychosis, I would have just agreed.
But he was making the case that this was a grey area due to the abortion laws forcing her to give birth. That’s a much different stance, and the one I was replying to.
While all that is definitely reasonable, it’s a pretty big leap from “the law prevented me from getting an abortion” to “I’mma just yeet this baby out the window.”
Those ideas are so far apart as to not even remotely justify one another, right?
Like, if someone gets cut off in traffic, and they get mad and mow down a dozen pedestrians, it’d be insane to be like, “Well, you have to understand, he got cut off real bad. Mowing down pedestrians is clearly wrong, but there’s definitely some real grey area there.”
Quick math says that’s about a 19-20% return annually for the 10yrs since 2014.
The average APY of the S&P 500 over the same time period was about 11-12%.
So definitely way outperforming the market, though maybe achievable with one or two good picks on individual stock?
Definitely not a good look regardless.
Fair. I presume that they meant publicly available in the sense that it was accessible to the public, not in the sense that it was necessarily free.
The article says they are using PimEyes, which I assume means that they’re paying for a subscription.