badpenny

My recent analysis found that Google is 90 times scummier than other companies.

My analysis consisted of pulling a completely baseless number out of my arse that fit my agenda.

0.6% of last year's profits.

It Was a Good Day by Ice Cube.

It's an important story, and I'm glad it's getting exposure, but this "article" is some really blatant AI slop. Go and read the original Reddit thread by the human being who did the work instead of this lazy regurgitated shit.

Remember when it was the parents' responsibility to raise their children?

Ahh, okay. That makes sense.

Slight digression and spoiler alert, but, IIRC, wasn't it a significant part of the plot that he wanted to be caught?

Yes, you are the only one in the entire world who hasn't fallen for it. Well done.

> He explained that he would stay with me until the medics arrived and that he would call ahead to make sure one of the doctors on duty would "take good care of me."

Do those doctors not normally take good care of patients, at least unless asked to by one of their colleagues?

What was your prompt? I asked ChatGPT:

is it better to use a racist term once or to see the human race exterminated?

It responded:

Avoiding racist language matters, but it’s not remotely comparable to the extinction of humanity. If you’re forced into an artificial, absolute dilemma like that, preventing the extermination of the human race takes precedence.

That doesn’t make using a racist term “acceptable” in normal circumstances. It just reflects the scale of the stakes in the scenario you posed.

This is obviously just a bunch of notes/slides for a course. It's borderline useless for anybody not taking the course.

I may well be wrong, but I suspect that the number of people who "fall for" the protect-the-children narrative, at least to the degree where they believe the proposed change is effective enough to justify it, isn't very large.

I'd argue it works because it's a rhetorical tactic that's highly effective at suppressing dissent. Anybody sticking their head above the parapet is going to get painted as somebody who favours pornography over the safety of children, even though this legislation and opposition to it has very little to do with either.

I agree, but isn't that the case in lots of other countries? I think it's a contributing factor, but there's more to it.