Ok many comments bash OP for the word choice “prudish” to point out this is a bad faith troll. I would also point out the issue with “hate sex”. There are people who are not prudish at all, and love sex, and still don’t want to see lewd things. Famously, arousal reduces thresholds for feeling disgust. I would argue that it is quite normal for humans to see overly revealing images of most bodies off putting, unless in an actual sexual situation. Then, there are people, I would be fine calling them prudish in the lack of a better term, as shyness kind of undersells this, who really don’t want to see, hear, talk about, or even mention sex. Someone like that can still really like sex- doing it, not talking about it. So “hate sex” is not the same as “don’t want to see explicit porn all the time everywhere”.

I didn’t read the article, but from the summary, it’s not obvious which humans wrote the stories. Famously, the ability of humans for writing is not the same for everyone. The average person writes like shit. The average writer writes kind of ok. The top few percentile of writers write really well, and the rest of humans like to read what those writers write. So if in the study, they asked a 6 year old, a plumber, and an accountant for a story, I completely understand that ai rated better. But even then, I would rather read 10 bad stories by random people than 10 passable-appearing ai stories.

It’s too late to record a baseline, so any metrics will need to work retrospectively anyway.

Yes, I tried both before going self hosted; and both try very hard to make your life difficult if you don’t subscribe. Actually I got hooked on RSS with Google Reader, which was a perfect, simple, free reader. It got shut down, because I guess it doesn’t make sense to provide that service for free.

I will try rephrasing it: its a nonsensical, fucking stupid proposal that gdp should equal earned income, and that somehow if the two are not equal then the difference amounts to slavery.
Do you care to elaborate, why do you even think these two should be the same, and what the difference has to do with slavery, as it relates to the actual meaning of that expression, not random things you don’t like.

Yes

I go to work for money (in the job I chose), and I get money, i call that a fair deal. If I was owned by someone, was forced to work, and would not get paid in return, I would be a slave. I mean what do you think it should be like? I don’t go to work and I get paid anyways? Who makes the shit I buy with the money then?

Mm, so if a worker creates added value, that makes the worker a slave? Interesting theory.

Eventually, pretty much anyone using crypto needs an exchange for real money. No matter how perfect the blockchain itself operates, users need to rely on third party exchanges as on- and off ramps. So they can only rely on the crypto to the extent the government enables (and regulates) trustworthy exchanges. Yea, I guess if you are a drug lord or rogue authoritarian state, it’s still your best bet. Or if you live in a country where crypto exchanges are not a lot worse than banks in terms of security and consumer protection. But in the US, for a legitimate use, I don’t think it’s a reasonable idea to use crypto. And I think that says something about those who use it at massive scale.

Would make more sense if post was talking about slavery, not labor. Labor is compensated.

But these are not ideologies, they’re made up derogatory terms. It’s like asking what is the difference between a fuckwit and a dickwad.

Maybe. Nevertheless, characterizing heroin and opium as social lubricants sounds insane to me, even if the core thought (not every substance use habit is a problem to solve) is valid.

It is not, in fact, a good article. A lot of the text is nonsense mumbo jumbo, a salad of words vaguely related to the topic but often used incorrectly. My guess is that the journalist just didn’t understand what the scientist said. The other possibility is that the scientist was high and was rambling incoherently.

This is a verbatim quote:

Yes, opioids bind to a class of receptors called endogenous opioids, which you find in endorphins, for example. Opioids bind to these receptors—just like natural chemicals do—which results in a response. In some cases, because of decreased sensitivities and certain types of pain, they may enhance a sense of euphoria.

Isn’t the bible god’s perspective? It’s supposed to be his words.

Then why do you equate stress with biopsy?

deleted by creator

Technically, one can listen to text and use dictation, so a person not knowing a single letter could perfectly understand and send texts on a smartphone or a computer.
But honestly, how does one get into a situation where they need to prove they can read? I think OP is in second grade and wants to cheat the test.

So is the problem that they are greedy evil capitalist, or that they are stupid people who don’t even know how to run a business to make profit?

And here we go with the typical thread of “I spent 2.6 seconds vaguely thinking about this so now I know better than any of those so called experts; I should now go online and educate people about the issue. If there is a counterargument, I will double down using only my common sense as source and ignore any input.”

The NYT is a business. Why would you expect them to give you anything for free?

I fixed that for you.