Bluesky is far more user friendly and that’s why the people are going there. I get it, y’all love federation and ActivityPub, but no one wants to pick an instance, much less read a manifesto on decentralized social media. (Frankly, Lemmy has much of the same issues.)

I have had a Mastodon account since Elmo Muskrat bought Twitter, but it’s practically useless as few outside some specific IT-oriented users are on it. I got Bluesky, and it’s been way better as it attracts a larger variety of people.

Illegal to sell. Which means you cannot drink it as you cannot obtain it without a cow of your own.

I mean, I think people should be able to make an informed choice to drink raw milk if they want. In my state it’s straight up illegal.

Edit: so people can drink alcohol or smoke weed, but raw milk is a bridge too far?

One is my name. The other is not.

Ron was happy to cash a fat Netflix check for his bullshit memoir, now shocked he ignored all the signs Vance was an asshole.

But that is just it. When a commercial enterprise is literally saving copyrighted content and car reproduce it on demand, copyright holders have every right to object. Either use public domain materials and/or license copyrighted materials, or don’t try to make money off AI.

I didn’t say that at all. I was responding to OP claiming they don’t memorize content at all.

Not many. And generally not book passages or whole NY Post articles. That’s the point. OP claims it tosses the original, but it doesn’t.

This process is akin to how humans learn by reading widely and absorbing styles and techniques, rather than memorizing and reproducing exact passages. The AI discards the original text, keeping only abstract representations in “vector space”.

Citation needed. I’m pretty sure LLMs have exactly reproduced copyrighted passages. And considering it can created detailed summaries of copyrighted texts, it obviously has to save more than “abstract representations.”

Who said they don’t? I just find it hilarious that one of said idiotic opinions (cats should be vegan!) is the cause of so much controversy.

Vegans causing controversy. This is my complete lack of surprise.

She was targeted because it was spread falsely she had XY chromosomes and had high testosterone, not that she was North African. Rowling has had plenty of hate for white trans people.

Another thing MBAs have destroyed as they try to slightly increase profits.

Nationalization means the government takes full control of an industry, not merely sets standards on their purchase.

And buyers are able to have any reason they want for their purchase decisions, including optics. It’s still the invisible hand. And besides, I think it’s more than optics to want American tax dollars to go to Americans.

Capitalism doesn’t mean “always buy the cheapest.” It means anyone can sell at any price and quality, and the people choose. And, in my experience, Chinese made goods are often of lower quality, made with poor environmental standards, and produced with questionable labor practices (including outright slave labor).

Considering this only covers US Government purchased flags, this IS the invisible hand of the market. It’s a consumer choosing where they want to purchase products.

And it is t nationalizing the industry. They still will be privately produced. And individual Americans can still by Chinese flags.

Senator Brown is a great senator and literally the only statewide Democrat we have other than a few state Supreme Court justices (who will be out soon now that Republicans added party affiliation to the court ballot). He will be far better for America than Bernie Moreno.

This case isn’t about a fed, it’s a local official.

There are other rules governing most federal employees. This is only one specific federal criminal law.

People are way overreacting to this. This decision was 100% about a federal statute. Unaffected are the MANY, MANY state and local laws preventing state and local government employees from taking gifts.

Edit: for y’all downvoters, even the linked article states

In any event, the decision in *Snyder *is narrow. It does not rule that Congress could not ban gratuities. It simply rules that this particular statute only reaches bribes.

Or, better yet, do we need to embrace the idea that infinite growth isn’t possible, and adopt economic systems that do not rely on it?

Which, as the article states, they are starting to end that practice.