First, you're confusing me with the other commenter. I just asked about what you said.
Second, you didn't answered that question.
Third, gender neutral restrooms, bathrooms, toilets, latrines, outhouses... have been the norm for most of human history, gendered ones are the recent invention not the other way around.
Most people don't want there to only be gender neutral bathrooms.
I don't know, honestly. Most people don't have gendered bathrooms in their homes, do they? Also, what I do know is that 'most people', quote, "favor laws that require transgender individuals to use bathrooms that correspond to their sex at birth", so I don't think 'most people' arguments are of help here when it's well known that most people will just go along with the status quo without a second thought.
Excuse me but, what makes genderless bathrooms impossible to implement or impractical? I do get that the bathroom issue is just superficial and going genderless wouldn't be a real solution to the hate and bigotry, but I've always found gendered toilets quite stupid.
Well, even for that, Trump is a fucking mediocre. Compare it to Obama, that raised the debt by a 70.9% during his two terms, Bush Jr 72.6%, Reagan 160.8%... but all of them get dusted by Roosevelt's (Frank, of course, Teddy just got some unremarkable 22.6% increase) 791.8%. Source.
I think it's more likely the latter, that I've seen another of their pieces (in Madrid or Granada, maybe...) but it's not impossible that I've seen this one in or around Getxo either.
First, obligatory disclaimer: I'm as anti-Trump as the next one, fuck that fascist turd.
That being said let's give them numbers a bit of context:
That figure is for all the time that Trump's been in office, and in absolute terms is around $9.135T (as of May 2026, so a bit more now).
Some numbers for other presidents: Joe Biden $9.209T (+32%), Barack Obama $8.438T (+70.9%), George W Bush $4.218T (+72.6%), Bill Clinton $1.263T (+28.6%). Source.
At the current interest rate Americans are gonna pay $1T just in interests in 2026. That averages ~$250 per person, or ~$625 per tax payer a month.
Interest payments are forecast to double in the next ~10 years.
Is it not, tho? I mean no disrespect because I ain't no anthropologist and I ain't got no PhD in nothing, but, when was this time when humans where not in permanent competition, working most of their waking hours? She comments 'a few hundred years' ago which would put it in the Enlightenment, Renaissance, or Middle Ages? I do not think your average peasant got that great of a life back then either. Again I'm not saying it's not true, but I would appreciate some sources or elaborating a bit further than a trust-me-bro appeal to authority.
Also, I'm not saying that, even if it were normal, we shouldn't try and change it. Because if we don't strive to make life better and more comfortable for us humans, what's the point of all this civilisation shit?
I don't personally see any inherent reason why the next AI song I hear couldn't be the best song I've ever heard.
I agree. But for every riff, phrase, vocal arrangement, structure, harmony, sentence... in the 'best song you've ever heard' so far, the artist(s) have tried hundreds or thousands of variations until they found the one that's really touching. So even if, technically, the AI can generate each of the millions of permutations in this search, the actual choosing based on the emotion, mood, feeling... is not there. So the probability of finding that needle in the massive slop haystack is extremely low. Unless they somehow can reproduce human feelings within their models, which I don't think is the path any of these companies want to follow.
I kinda agree with these one. But as you said, to get to the level of the real good music, the music that's really an art, it's got a long way to go yet. Maybe it's not getting there ever, since to make art (at least by my preferred definitions) it has to provoke, to transmit and evoke some emotion or mood on the recipient. And there's no formula to achieve that, artists just try and try until they 'find it' in a particular piece.
Now for mainstream, commercial music, yes it absolutely can take over it, and nothing of value will be lost. I don't even feel sad for these 'artists', they're all quite hot and aren't gonna have any trouble finding another job to exploit their beauty. It might even waste less water, energy, and other resources than the traditional pop artist pipeline, idk.
I don't think this one fits the comm. Yes, the American health system is dystopian, but for mountain rescues and other 'extreme sports' this is the standard all around the world.
There are special insurances, some times through clubs or federations too, but if you go without them or out of what they cover you're on your own. Break an ankle and you'll gonna pay very handsomely—the vehicles, installations, equipment, training, personnel.. don't come cheap. And I think it is absolutely fair that, if you cause all these expenses and these people risking their lives because you wanted to play adventurer, you foot the bill.
I was just taking a look at that. Well, not the article but the actual study it links...
Don't get so sassy, I think asking someone not only to read a scientific article to answer to your comment but also to go to the other comments to read another is a bit too much to ask. But I've done it anyway... and now I'm doubting that you did read them. From this second article:
No differences in Anterior Cingulate Cortex volume replicated between levels of conservatism - in contrast to the original study
self-reported ideology (single item) was not a significant predictor of amygdalar volume.
So you take a deep breath and read more carefully what you post before making bullshit assertions like 'With like two minutes of training, anyone can identify political affiliation almost instantly from a brain scan, with over 70% accuracy...'.
But the right-wing hate campaign has affected the box office, giving the movie some massive publicity. I wouldn't have even heard about the movie if it weren't for this controversy (I'm a bit saturated lately so I don't keep up with barely any new media).
Maybe some right-wing people just like getting angry when there's really not much reason to get angry.
This phenomenon doesn't only happen in that direction, lots of people cried out racism because of a white Cleopatra. So when is it acceptable to race-bend a character or historical figure and when is it not?
PS: the real Cleopatra (of the Ptolemaic dynasty) was actually white.
Ok, so first, I've read it but not any of the citations or any other follow up work.. but that study is about people with lesions in their brain, what about people with healthy brains? Can you identify conservatives with just a scan if they don't have a brain injury? I still doubt it, much less 'anyone with two minutes of training'. Or maybe you mean that half (if not more) of the world population suffers some kind of brain lesion or disorder? And that sample size seems also quite small and, without really being able to actually tell, not very random (the groups with lesions are overwhelmingly white, while the control group isn't...).
Don't get me wrong, I do think that conservatism is a disease/disorder. But a social, memetic one. That can't be diagnosed or cured like physical or mental problems.
Anyway, it doesn't convinced me, but it doesn't matter cause I don't really have any use for that information since I can't scan people's brains, modify them, or cure injuries. But I'm sure the fascists taking ahold of the world will be (are?) very interested on this bullshit, and I won't be surprised if they end up putting anyone with a functional prefrontal cortex down.
But that's the thing, there's no 'continuity' in Doctor Who. In-universe time is not linear, not even a branching multiverse or anything like that. It is, quote, 'A big ball of wibbly wobbly, timey wimey stuff'. So, for example, you can massacre the daleks till there're only three of them and two episodes later they come back in the trillions, no biggie.
First, you're confusing me with the other commenter. I just asked about what you said.
Second, you didn't answered that question.
Third, gender neutral restrooms, bathrooms, toilets, latrines, outhouses... have been the norm for most of human history, gendered ones are the recent invention not the other way around.
I don't know, honestly. Most people don't have gendered bathrooms in their homes, do they? Also, what I do know is that 'most people', quote, "favor laws that require transgender individuals to use bathrooms that correspond to their sex at birth", so I don't think 'most people' arguments are of help here when it's well known that most people will just go along with the status quo without a second thought.
Excuse me but, what makes genderless bathrooms impossible to implement or impractical? I do get that the bathroom issue is just superficial and going genderless wouldn't be a real solution to the hate and bigotry, but I've always found gendered toilets quite stupid.
Well, even for that, Trump is a fucking mediocre. Compare it to Obama, that raised the debt by a 70.9% during his two terms, Bush Jr 72.6%, Reagan 160.8%... but all of them get dusted by Roosevelt's (Frank, of course, Teddy just got some unremarkable 22.6% increase) 791.8%. Source.
I think it's more likely the latter, that I've seen another of their pieces (in Madrid or Granada, maybe...) but it's not impossible that I've seen this one in or around Getxo either.
Where's this from, op? I find it mighty familiar, I think I've seen this very flower.
First, obligatory disclaimer: I'm as anti-Trump as the next one, fuck that fascist turd. That being said let's give them numbers a bit of context:
That figure is for all the time that Trump's been in office, and in absolute terms is around $9.135T (as of May 2026, so a bit more now).
Some numbers for other presidents: Joe Biden $9.209T (+32%), Barack Obama $8.438T (+70.9%), George W Bush $4.218T (+72.6%), Bill Clinton $1.263T (+28.6%). Source.
At the current interest rate Americans are gonna pay $1T just in interests in 2026. That averages ~$250 per person, or ~$625 per tax payer a month.
Interest payments are forecast to double in the next ~10 years.
Or just eat beans? On top of the protein you get a lot of fiber and a handful of other nutrients, and they are delicious!
Is it not, tho? I mean no disrespect because I ain't no anthropologist and I ain't got no PhD in nothing, but, when was this time when humans where not in permanent competition, working most of their waking hours? She comments 'a few hundred years' ago which would put it in the Enlightenment, Renaissance, or Middle Ages? I do not think your average peasant got that great of a life back then either. Again I'm not saying it's not true, but I would appreciate some sources or elaborating a bit further than a trust-me-bro appeal to authority.
Also, I'm not saying that, even if it were normal, we shouldn't try and change it. Because if we don't strive to make life better and more comfortable for us humans, what's the point of all this civilisation shit?
I agree. But for every riff, phrase, vocal arrangement, structure, harmony, sentence... in the 'best song you've ever heard' so far, the artist(s) have tried hundreds or thousands of variations until they found the one that's really touching. So even if, technically, the AI can generate each of the millions of permutations in this search, the actual choosing based on the emotion, mood, feeling... is not there. So the probability of finding that needle in the massive slop haystack is extremely low. Unless they somehow can reproduce human feelings within their models, which I don't think is the path any of these companies want to follow.
I kinda agree with these one. But as you said, to get to the level of the real good music, the music that's really an art, it's got a long way to go yet. Maybe it's not getting there ever, since to make art (at least by my preferred definitions) it has to provoke, to transmit and evoke some emotion or mood on the recipient. And there's no formula to achieve that, artists just try and try until they 'find it' in a particular piece.
Now for mainstream, commercial music, yes it absolutely can take over it, and nothing of value will be lost. I don't even feel sad for these 'artists', they're all quite hot and aren't gonna have any trouble finding another job to exploit their beauty. It might even waste less water, energy, and other resources than the traditional pop artist pipeline, idk.
This is, in fact, what every country (civilised or not, I'm not gonna be the one handing out civilisation membership cards) does in these cases.
I don't think this one fits the comm. Yes, the American health system is dystopian, but for mountain rescues and other 'extreme sports' this is the standard all around the world.
There are special insurances, some times through clubs or federations too, but if you go without them or out of what they cover you're on your own. Break an ankle and you'll gonna pay very handsomely—the vehicles, installations, equipment, training, personnel.. don't come cheap. And I think it is absolutely fair that, if you cause all these expenses and these people risking their lives because you wanted to play adventurer, you foot the bill.
Don't fight an elephant if it is drunk, either. Trust me.
I see no lies here. Don is indeed a proper decent cunt, and Joe has been in service of the rich and powerful for longer than I've been breathing.
I haven't even seen an ad, trailer, review, or article about it that doesn't has to do with the Musk and company drama, yet.
I was just taking a look at that. Well, not the article but the actual study it links...
Don't get so sassy, I think asking someone not only to read a scientific article to answer to your comment but also to go to the other comments to read another is a bit too much to ask. But I've done it anyway... and now I'm doubting that you did read them. From this second article:
So you take a deep breath and read more carefully what you post before making bullshit assertions like 'With like two minutes of training, anyone can identify political affiliation almost instantly from a brain scan, with over 70% accuracy...'.
But the right-wing hate campaign has affected the box office, giving the movie some massive publicity. I wouldn't have even heard about the movie if it weren't for this controversy (I'm a bit saturated lately so I don't keep up with barely any new media).
This phenomenon doesn't only happen in that direction, lots of people cried out racism because of a white Cleopatra. So when is it acceptable to race-bend a character or historical figure and when is it not?
PS: the real Cleopatra (of the Ptolemaic dynasty) was actually white.
Ok, so first, I've read it but not any of the citations or any other follow up work.. but that study is about people with lesions in their brain, what about people with healthy brains? Can you identify conservatives with just a scan if they don't have a brain injury? I still doubt it, much less 'anyone with two minutes of training'. Or maybe you mean that half (if not more) of the world population suffers some kind of brain lesion or disorder? And that sample size seems also quite small and, without really being able to actually tell, not very random (the groups with lesions are overwhelmingly white, while the control group isn't...).
Don't get me wrong, I do think that conservatism is a disease/disorder. But a social, memetic one. That can't be diagnosed or cured like physical or mental problems.
Anyway, it doesn't convinced me, but it doesn't matter cause I don't really have any use for that information since I can't scan people's brains, modify them, or cure injuries. But I'm sure the fascists taking ahold of the world will be (are?) very interested on this bullshit, and I won't be surprised if they end up putting anyone with a functional prefrontal cortex down.
Wake up, babe! New phrenology just dropped.
But that's the thing, there's no 'continuity' in Doctor Who. In-universe time is not linear, not even a branching multiverse or anything like that. It is, quote, 'A big ball of wibbly wobbly, timey wimey stuff'. So, for example, you can massacre the daleks till there're only three of them and two episodes later they come back in the trillions, no biggie.