biohacker85

Completely agree. It’s like a game from their point of view— watching how many inadvertent logins they can capture.

The only use case Lottie solved for me was for displaying a video with a transparent background.

Naming things is hard but I feel like there is something odd about a class name referencing a single CSS property as it is basically an inline style: <div style=“display: flex”></div>

While I don’t think lack of nudity can “hold a society back”, somewhere around 99% of the male population in the United States is addicted to porn (which is a type of nudity). Clearly there is no lack of nudity.

I don't disagree with the problem and lack of options. But forcing a company to add features feels like overstepping. I'm not sure how that can be legal or even be with the spirit of the law.

Even this one isn’t clear. Do you mean “trust me” as in “trust the science” and “try it yourself” as in “trust Jesus and see for yourself”. Or “trust me” as in the Catholic Church “don’t read the Bible I’ll tell you what it says” and “try it yourself” as in “verify my results”.

Sometimes I wish I wasn't so cynical, but I've suspected that SSRIs are a preferred treatment because it is almost impossible to get off of them. They say "It can take up to a month for it to work" is just a way to make sure dependency is strong enough by that point to make withdrawal unbearable. Many people don't fully understand the concept of withdrawal or chemical dependency, and will think the "medicine" works because they feel awful without it.

I believe the user "constantcrying" is looking for a "username checks out" response as is popular on reddit. This kind of stuff should stay on reddit, but if it is going to be tried here it really needs to be more clever.

you concede everything

Air/ocean pollution and environmental damage !== climate change.

Climate change is specifically about greenhouse emissions trapping the suns heat causing long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns.

It’s apathy

I am following the prescribed "action plan" for the average citizen. What would you have me do? Not everyone can be a political activist.

My point was that even in a hypothetical scenario where climate change is false (no rise in global temperatures or change in weather patterns), the damage we are doing to the earth is still enough to destroy it.

I'll answer this in good faith. I can't help but be skeptical yet practice a version of "pascals wager" but apply it to climate change. I drive an electric vehicle, power my house with solar, reduce air travel, etc. I have 2 major issues: The first is that the environmental damage we are currently doing-- destruction of our oceans, polluting our air and water, etc. will destroy our planet in a few generations any ways, climate change not required. Second is that I am skeptical of our governments response. I don't believe they genuinely care about solving it other than making money off it. Does it really matter if I am skeptical? I am doing what little a normal citizen is expected to do to fight it.

*edit: fixed spelling

This sounds exactly like all other addictive drugs, such as opiates. Diminishing returns combined with physical dependence.

I figured many people with your viewpoint would have a hard time criticizing people of color.

Does this comment include Southern Blacks and Hispanics or just the white ones?

I don't know if he's a good engineer or not, but people that don't like him want it to be true and will propagate it regardless. All negative news or rumors about him--twitter is failing, his companies succeed despite him, SpaceX launchpad exploded, Tesla kills pedestrian, stock is tanking, etc..." grants a huge dopamine boost to these people. Unfortunately I understand this well as I have my own areas where this is true.

Personally, I enjoy conspiracy discussions as long as its not the same old recycled theories. In the spirit of hacker news, at the very least the theory should promote curious discussion and avoid left/right American politics.

Since the topic is OpenAI, GPT-4, I'll say that I assume this tech has been around and available to a select few for years before it became mainstream. I believe it has been used to push narratives and ideas across popular internet sites and apps, creating the impression that these ideas are popular and held by the majority (not just political ideas).

Is the threat of a foreign adversary spying on US citizens the same as the US Government spying on its citizens? I'm in the camp that a foreign adversary is a more dangerous situation.

You have to give credit to whomever came up with it, its a cheap but effective linguistic kill shot. No doubt it was engineered to be divisive, and whomever is wielding it is unlikely to be reasoned with.

Meat has been a staple of the human diet since recorded history. Its basically a science experiment spanning millenia with favorable results for meat-eating--no anecdotes necessary.

I wonder what percentage of comments are motivated by a previous perception of Elon. "Blue checkmarks for $8/month is a bad idea..." (because user dislikes Elon), or "This is Genius! He's already fixing twitter! (user is a fan).

I think the Tesla's are cool, SpaceX is immpressive, I enjoy his online trolling but I don't think he is a genius. The rocket scientist he employs at SpaceX is a genius. I got caught up on the way you phrased your response-- I felt that it was written in bad faith with "he's just an engineer who had a very rich father, Did he invent something that I'm not aware of? ". However seing as you were responding to someone who elevated him to Genius I can see why.

The "he had very rich parents" is often used to reduce one's achievements. A quick google search shows there are over 60 million "millionaires" in the world, yet less than 1% know how to turn it into a billion.

This reminds me of a joke I once saw acted out on Spanish television. A proud father is at the hospital waiting for his son to be born. The doctor comes out and says, "I'm sorry sir but it seems your son will be born without feet." The father answers "He's my son and I'll love him no matter what." The doctor comes out a few minutes later "I'm sorry sir but it seems your son will be born without legs." The father continues "He's my son and I'll love him no matter what." The doctor comes out again "I'm sorry sir but your son will be born without arms or hands." The father again says "He's my son and I'll love him no matter what." The doctor comes out again "I'm sorry sir but your son will be born without a torso, and will be blind and mute." The father again maintains "He's my son and I'll love him no matter what." At last the doctor comes out cradling an ear--"Sir I present your son". The father proclaims " My son! I love you!" The doctor responds "I'm sorry sir, your son is deaf."

Being unable to scratch an itch is bad enough.

I've talked with enough "woke" activists to know that they are not oblivious to this glaring contradiction. While most don't say it outright, since whites are perceived to be privileged and the main offenders of racism, racism against them is to be accepted during this "transition" period to equality.

The companies themselves may moan but I don't think everyday Americans really care what the EU does.

But this "one rule for us another for them" principle really needs to stop. Why would any nation treat foreign companies equal to their own? I don't see the problem especially when its from an adversary or a nation who's companies are an extension of their government.

I don't see the contradiction. You can have a strong opinion about something without being affected by its outcome.

I am responding to someone whom I presume to be pro-choice and am trying to see if a compromise is even possible. The most common counter argument to "the baby has the right to life" is that the mothers life takes priority. The situation where the mother's life is in danger (also including rape and incest) is in the minority of cases (citation needed), therefore the majority of abortions could be prevented if conservatives would concede those scenarios.

On the issue that the mother's life is at risk, or the baby is a product of incest or rape. This shouldn't even be debatable. Are the majority of conservatives really against abortion in these cases?

All of this should be left to the woman, her doctor, her circumstances and her conscience I agree completely, however if we are contending with the counter argument that a fetus does become a "person" at some point late in the pregnancy, having an abortion after this point for no other reason than "I don't feel like it/ I changed my mind" would by definition have to be murder. The "competing rights to life" argument would not apply here.

Do you think the majority of democrats would support granting "personhood" to the fetus at some late stage in the pregnancy if conservatives would support legislating abortion into law (abortions before the fetus reaches personhood for any reason, after which only if the doctor believes the mother's life to be in danger.) Or this is too much of a compromise, women should be able to abort at any time for any reason?

Isn't this the crux of the conflict? Whether these "natural rights" are applicable to the "person" in the womb?

The argument "you only care about people before they are born" is what you find on reddit and is made in bad faith. This argument compares what is perceived as murder with minimizing government assistance after birth. Whether they are right or wrong is irrelevant as they believe their position before and after birth to be for the benefit of the child and therefore "pro-life".

edit: fixed typo