BoxFour

Not endorsing OP's POV, but OP specifically talked about legal consequences. Legality is something the state defines.

> Anything the WR can do on it's own is often seen as 'AI slop'

This has not been my experience inside of a FAANG, in fact rather the opposite: People have been getting praised for AI slop because they can produce it quickly and it’s “good enough”.

The pendulum is slowly starting to swing back a little bit, but mostly because people have realized there’s effectively infinite noise now and doing anything, regardless of how skilled of a QB you are, is not being rewarded.

This is a good point but probably not in the way you intended.

If AI is the wide receiver, it’s perceived currently by many to be an absolutely elite top-tier receiver.

Especially at lower leagues, QBs who have these clearly elite WRs are discounted and considered more-or-less replaceable all the time, because “anyone could throw the ball to Megatron 2.0”.

See, for example, Graham Harrell at Texas Tech: Paired with Michael Crabtree, put up insane numbers, went undrafted. Shedeur Sanders is another more controversial recent example.

It’s definitely not a guarantee that people will see the QB as valuable if the WR is that good.

Programming trade schools were (are they still?) quite popular for a long time - see lambda school et al.

They weren’t a panacea either.

Universities never kept up with current practices and to be honest I don’t really think it’s their job to.

Universities aren’t vocational schools. An undergraduate education can, at best, teach you how to learn complex topics independently and give you foundational knowledge you can build upon later whether you’re going into industry, pursuing a PhD, or doing something unrelated.

The place for you to learn “practical” software development is an internship or an entry-level role, assisted with a lot of self-directed learning that hopefully university made possible for you.

> Everything else you listed was a drastic change in the way an existing service (taxis, home media, backups) was delivered or priced, to the point where they feel like either an entirely different product

Doesn't this still line up with the original point though?

The incumbents had the exact same opportunity to capitalize. Blockbuster could've leaned into streaming hard before Netflix.

I do think that's become a bit harder recently, though, so the original point is slightly less relevant (though obviously still exists, see for example OpenAI vis-a-vis DeepMind). Big companies are much faster on chasing trends, even if they end up amounting to not much. See crypto, for example. I do think part of that reason is because the current wave of companies capitalized where incumbents faltered, so they're desperate not to make the same mistake.

It's incredibly common in retail/food service/hopsitality/etc.

Usually about covering shifts.

I'm not sure what your point is, to be blunt. It seems like you wanted to make some weird argument about the semantics of the word "abuse", and are now implying one of:

1) Beastiality isn't sexual abuse

2) Beastiality laws are pointless because it was already illegal under existing abuse laws (it wasn't, as we've repeatedly discussed)

3) Sexual abuse requires physical harm

all of which are pretty gross (1,3) and/or pointless (2). I don't really feel the need to argue any of this any further, so I'll leave you to it.

I'll be blunt: I don't really feel the need to argue about that point. It's sexual abuse.

> yes it was illegal to sexually abuse animals

No, it wasn't. The laws are quite explicit about what "abuse" means, and if you take a gander at most laws (including Washington state's circa 2000 or so) in the context of animals it usually explicitly refers to physical harm (for example, mutilation) or improper living conditions. Charging them under Washington's existing abuse laws would've required the animal to be physically injured, which it wasn't. It's quite literally why they had to pass a new law.

I don't know why I have to explain this, but:

1) Sexual abuse can occur without physical harm or injury.

2) Beastiality is sexual abuse.

> There was a very famous case back in Washington state back in the early 2000s where a group of men were sexually abusing horses. It was uncovered because one of them died, and the other could only be charged with trespassing because it wasn't illegal at the time to sexually abuse animals.

What I said, verbatim, about that case.

What part of that is incorrect or warrants clarification, exactly?

> in cases where the animals aren’t harmed

What an odd thing to say about the sexual abuse of an animal.

I don’t think the semantics are very important here, I think it was clear I'm talking about sexual abuse specifically without this odd clarification.

> The only counterpoint here is, I think, that the severity of such punishments seems to be vastly underestimated.

I suppose I disagree: Modern forms of this ("cancelling") are well-aware of the economic impact it can have on individuals, and indeed often this is the intended outcome. People on all sides of the political spectrum here understand the impact of impoverishment and homelessness (though they obviously disagree on what should be done about it).

> The question is not whether we should shun people (we should, with a fair few qualifications), but whether such penalties should be levied for words

I don't see how you ever disentangle these two. For a large part of the populace, there are some combinations of words they will find abhorrent and want to punish. The exact nature of that punishment is up for debate, but we've largely settled on the status quo here.

If you can find some way to keep people from wanting to punish some subset of words universally then congratulations, a few nobel prizes are indeed yours.

Those seem like two different scenarios though, right?

The point of beastiality laws are to give society some recourse to punish people who abuse animals.

There was a very famous case back in Washington state back in the early 2000s where a group of men were sexually abusing horses. It was uncovered because one of them died, and the other could only be charged with trespassing because it wasn't illegal at the time to sexually abuse animals.

> how does one get not punishing opinions—even those that would put the listener in danger if implemented—broadly accepted as a value?

Taking you literally, I don't think that's possible. Social punishment (in the form of shunning, boycotts, "cancelling", etc) has been around as long as human society has existed and is incredibly popular.

If someone figures out how to reliably solve that, a few nobel prizes are probably awaiting them.

If you want to take a subset of this problem, maybe it's possible: Like if you mean corporations specifically, not all private actors.