CodeSgt

Highly addictive drugs destroy lives and families. The little girl who’s father has a heroin addiction sure didn’t get any say in his choice, but she’s affected by it.

The citizens of communities ravaged by addiction all suffer, whether they individually consume the drug or not.

The idea that drug use is a victimless crime is patently false and all it takes is a few moments of thought to realize it.

No, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with adults smoking a joint after work or on the weekends if that’s what they choose to do, but it quickly devolves from there.

I can logically understand why this is a good thing. I enjoy running and biking myself. I often walk to places instead of drive during the rare times it’s a viable option.

Despite that understanding, I still don’t like it. It’s so incredibly frustrating going 20 or 25mph on a road where most drivers could easily safely drive over double that.

I also often see sections of road with speed limits well below what the road can handle, where EVERYONE is speeding, cops included. This is also frustrating because you’re still paranoid about getting a ticket just for going with the flow of traffic.

Maybe a silly question, but how can I find this “Python 3” game? Googling just shows tutorials on making a game in Python 3. Searching “Python 3” on steam doesn’t turn up anything.

Edit:

Smh I genuinely thought there was a game named Python 3. I’m familiar with the language. Just sleepy.

Unity was never FOSS. Nor was Figma, to my knowledge

That just means it’s about the opinion of the government, which isn’t much better in my opinion (and is arguably worse).

> knowingly > exploitable > vulnerable

None of these are cut and dry. How vulnerable does someone have to be before you can exploit them? How harmful does the behavior have to be before it’s exploitation? What is “knowingly” in an organization? How should events be handled if it’s a single engineer operating in the shadows vs a board decision? etc etc etc

The answers to these question may seem obvious to you, and someone else nay have a completely different answer that seems equally obvious to them.

Businesses don’t operate for the purpose of giving people jobs.

Displaying ads has nothing to do with GDPR. They can still display ads that aren’t targeted, they just can’t save your information for more targeted advertising.

I had a similar experience! I can’t recall if it was strep or what, but I do remember a particularly nasty illness from which I never really feel I recovered from neurologically.

Wow! I wonder what the reason behind this is?

I can tell why it’s a problem for working artists. I never suggested otherwise. What I disagreed with was the premise that it’s immoral or inherently wrong. A problem posing a difficulty to a certain group of difficulty doesn’t have any bearing on its morality.

I disagree with you, simply for the fact that artists have been learning from one another for thousands of years.

We can see a clear timeline of art and it’s progression throughout human history, and it’s often clear how a later work took inspiration from an earlier period.

Art school teaches techniques and methods pioneered by earlier artists, for the express purpose of their students to know how to incorporate them into their own original work.

Yet, no one is arguing that Van Gogh’s descendants should be paid a small royalty anytime a variation of on of his painting is produced, or even just when a painting in the style of one of his is produced.

Were all visual artwork to disappear from the world and collective human memory today, then the first new pieces produced by artists would look dramatically different - and likely much worse - than they do today.

What AI is doing is no different. Perhaps faster and on a larger scale than how humans learn from one another, but principally it’s the same.

It drives the average wage down as well, as now employers have almost twice as many potential candidates and therefore don’t have to offer as competitive pay.

You’re speaking from the position of someone clearly privileged enough to afford all the services you’d like to continue using. There are vast swaths of t people for whom an additional monthly subscription to watch YouTube, have access to email, read the news, browse social media, etc just isn’t financially tenable.

Especially in the year 2023 where technology and internet access is so crucial to survival, I’d prefer for a low-income family to not have to choose between a meal and renewing their monthly email subscription.