ImADifferentBird

Is taking orders from the CEO of Intel a core tennet of Christianity?

It's fucking weird.

So build more. Yes, that takes time. So start now.

This is only difficult because we make it difficult.

It's actually nothing like that at all. What you're describing is putting a societal problem on the shoulders of individuals. What I'm suggesting is that society should actually fix the problems it has created.

Every place that has taken a "housing first" approach has seen success out of it. But people insist on making the problem more complicated than it is, because we've built an entire society on the false idea that poor people somehow deserve to be poor and anything done to help them is somehow unjust.

We could just house them. That seems to work.

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread." - Anatole France

Yes. And Costco (inadvertently) broke them here. Hence the recall.

That was the point. If we let companies ignore the law when it "should be obvious", that gives them a lot of wiggle room to really fuck us over. And nobody wants that

He was pretty open about his disdain for religion before he became a Republican, and has shown little beyond lip service to Christianity after.

And as for the pedophilia stuff, he hung out with Epstein a lot and was known for barging into the Miss Teen USA dressing room unannounced, so...

The animal wasn't killed because the owner didn't have papers. The animal was killed because it was on video several times biting it's owner, and you cannot test for rabies without killing the animal and examining its brain.

Nailed it right there. They care more about this one squirrel than the women who die from pregnancies gone wrong because doctors can't treat them without opening themselves up to legal problems, the Haitians and Puerto Ricans who find themselves threatened and ostracized because of Trump and Vance's words, etc.

How do the actions of the prompter differ from the actions of someone who commissions an artist to create a work of art?

Ah, but there is a fundamental difference there. A photographer takes a picture, they do not tell the camera to take a picture for them.

It is the difference between speech and action.

Because it wasn't created by a human being.

If I ask an artist to create a work, the artist owns authorship of that work, no matter how long I spent discussing the particulars of the work with them. Hours? Days? Months? Doesn't matter. They may choose to share or reassign some or all of the rights that go with that, but initial authorship resides with them. Why should that change if that discussion is happening not with an artist, but with an AI?

The only change is that, not being a human being, an AI cannot hold copyright. Which means a work created by an AI is not copyrightable. The prompter owns the prompt, not the final result.