At a party given by a billionaire on Shelter Island, Kurt Vonnegut informs his pal, Joseph Heller, that their host, a hedge fund manager, had made more money in a single day than Heller had earned from his wildly popular novel Catch-22 over its whole history.

Heller responds, “Yes, but I have something he will never have — enough.”

I think the decades of family and social pressure telling me that my appearance defined my self worth which I experienced when I was raised as a girl is the reason I wear a hat to cover my balding head, thanks for asking!

Friend, I am trans, I could reproduce if I wanted to with a dude (I absolutely do not want to). I’m also already married to a gay man, so my rainbow hat is not to pick people up, it’s to cover up my balding head. :p

I mean, are straight people who are normal about it clamoring for the title to begin with? This seems like a problem invented basically entirely by the whiners. You could just as easily say it affects gay people who want an ironic title, or straight trans people, but for obvious reasons the whiners don’t really care about that.

All that said I have no idea what the price tag means in terms of gameplay time to acquire it. If it’s unachievable without 10 hours of grinding or something that’s a little mean, but not enough that I really care.

(Edit: accidentally a word)

It’s okay to take context into account and not just look at it as a math problem. Targeting a minority isn’t the same as doing it to people who make up 90% of society but are whiny.

Have the numbers for that come in yet?

Plenty of times someone’s sexuality is held above someone’s head, quite literally in the case of this casual fishing game where I feel it doesn’t even slightly belong

As a gay dude with a rainbow hat IRL this made me lol. I’m not wearing it to pick people up, I’m wearing it because I’m not ashamed of who I am. It’s not any different from wearing a wedding ring, couples shirts, or any of the million other displays of heterosexuality that you see and don’t think anything about.

PS: even if you are gay, internalized homophobia is a thing. Feeling that it’s super inappropriate to mention that you’re gay unless you want to fuck someone falls under that.

Oh, I don’t even mean from lost sales, I mean because this service is fundamentally going to cost more than the “theft” (lol) it’s allegedly stopping. If any one employee (or even a team) is doing this at scale and a business needs AI tracking customers to pick up on it, there is something drastically wrong.

This service is basically pure AI hype. It’s not doing anything a minimally engaged manager couldn’t already do with the salary you’re having to pay them anyway. Except the AI is also doing it worse and at a higher cost. Yay!

About a month ago, Israel-based Corsight AI began offering its global clients access to a new service aimed at rooting out what the retail industry calls “sweethearting,”—instances of store employees giving people they know discounts or free items.

Lol, I hope stores that use this lose millions on this stupid ass privacy invasion. Anyone stupid enough to believe the savings of catching a 10% employee discount used occasionally for friends or whatever is going to offset whatever the fuck this most recent torment nexus is going to cost frankly deserves to be swindled.

The purpose of a system is what it does.

Oh yeah, this dude without a question is guilty and a pedo. I meant more that ‘out of the box’ models may still produce material that looks really CSEM adjacent, and you have no way of telling whether or not it used CSEM to generate the image if the whole dataset is poisoned by actual CSEM being included.

Oh yeah, I was agreeing with you, sorry if I was unclear. It pisses me off this situation exists to begin with.

At least with a human being it’s a matter of factuality whether or not they’re over 18. But with AI it’s unverifiable, especially considering some models have already been trained on CSEM.

Once someone has that model locally, do they technically possess CSEM, even unknowingly? Do they only possess it if they try to make the AI make it? Seems like something someone in charge should have thought about in a legally binding way before dumping the internet into an image generator!

I mean, not the most severe judgement that’s been leveled at an LDP member in recent years.

Does Mastodon have the blocking features that Bluesky has (like lists, blocks stopping quote reply chains, etc)?

Other than on Blahaj, I’ve never found a place more chill to be queer online once you apply a couple of well maintained block lists.

They face a lot of shit because of their poor economic status, and that causes them stress, but one of the things they face is their economic status forces them to rent.

Cool, you have gone so far into the weeds that this no longer even resembles the original fact check, which was:

The survey asked: “To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? Housing problems or worries (e.g. affording the rent, poor conditions, losing my tenancy etc.) have made me feel physically ill/sick in the last year.”

10% of the private renters surveyed strongly agreed and another 13% answered “tend to agree”, meaning around a quarter agreed to some extent.

The Guardian headlined its piece “Private renting making millions sick in England, poll shows.”

This suggests a causal link specifically between renting privately (as opposed to renting from the council or some other housing situation) and feeling physically ill or sick. This isn’t evidenced in the survey.

Survey: did housing worries make you feel sick in the past year?

About 1/4th of renters: yes

The Guardian: article focusing entirely on the stress renters face

MBFC: if you only read the headline this article is very misleading!!

United Kingdom: The Guardian

Oops?

For clarity, your defense of MBFC’s rating is that anxiety over rising rent costs outpacing wages (leading to more people spending more of their income on rent), worries about no fault eviction (which only happens if you rent), and stress from poor quality housing (which again is mostly a problem for renters, because homeowners can deal with it how and when they please), is somehow completely unconnected to the fact these people are renting?

Yeah, I guess it’s technically true that they could have rented a castle or a luxury apartment instead. But it’s completely irrelevant when talking about the effects of housing insecurity on large swathes of the populace, and trying to spin it as “The Guardian says renting is bad for your health, negative points!!” is outright dishonest.

I’m definitely not paying to have a “think for me” bot on an instance I’m not part of. You can’t automod your way out of media illiteracy.

This is actually a great example for how the bot actively discourages critical thinking, as it seems you have started from your conclusion (MBFC is correct), worked backwards, and apparently have not even read the article or anything I’ve said in response to you.

They aren’t stressed because they’re spending 41% of their income on housing, they’re stressed because of their low socio economic status which causes them to spend 41% of their income on housing.

Wow, I wonder if the article mentioned any other factors, like no-fault evictions and poorly maintained apartments, in the second paragraph?

You keep talking about there being other factors like that wasn’t entirely what the article was about. Furthermore, almost every single one of those statements was about what advocacy organizations are claiming. Reporting what they are saying is factually inaccurate? Come off it.