It also has plenty of utility for non-information-storing purposes. It's more of a cultural issue than an issue with the tool.
Besides, wouldn't it take all the information there to its grave as well, making its death a net information loss? After all, information confined it is still information stored somewhere, just not as easily accessible directly from the Web.
Is [that] legal?
The question of legality hinges on the courts' willingness to hear the case and make a judgement. Doesn't matter how many public sector union lawyers press charges if they end up thrown out by corrupt judges.
In other words: Darth Sidious Voice "I will make it legal"
And since self-improvement is "woke", they choose the latter.
If you need to improve to be able to compete, you're not good enough. That's never a pleasant thought. Preventing competition is one way to avoid the possibility of having to face it.
Just don't expect them to always tell the truth, or to actually be human-like
I think the point of the post is to call out exactly that: people preaching AI as replacing humans
In theory, asking isn't illegal and truth is a defense against charges of slander and I wouldn't be surprised to learn his desire for domination extends to children. In practice, you're probably a few billion short of laws to apply.
There is a gun and a bottle of wild turkey next to my printer
I wouldn't leave a gun in the printer's reach. The fucking thing will murder you in your sleep. Those things are the work of the devil and every day they continue to exist is a day too long.
No, that's not "back", which implies they left. That's just staying with what you're used to, what is normal to you.
Google has become established enough that the name has obtained a sense in itself. When switching to something else, the new tool has to convince in a way that the previous one doesn't. Often, function isn't enough if the form doesn't fit.
The core of Christianity is originally the redemption, not the threat that necessitates it and often is more prominent.
The cross is a symbol of the sacrifice made to redeem people from the threat of hell. More relevant here is that sin separates humans from God, and through that sacrifice, the connection is restored. It is a catalyst of redemption and reunion. In that sense, they don't so much pray towards an implement of torture as an implement of liberation, salvation and mercy.
Given that those are hard things to put in a visual, tangible form and that humans tend to place a lot of value in visual, tangible representations, it's basically the simplest symbol you could come up with as a nascent cult.
It's not the only symbol, and particularly during the rise of the Roman church, you'll note that icons of saints become very common too. Some places will even have the Crucifix feature the crucified Jesus as well, to drive home the point about sacrifice and gratitude.
Protestants later held that the worship of saints was tantamount to idolatry and did away with them again, leaving just the core of the message of redemption. There was in some places a conscious choice to pick the "empty" cross rather than the crucified saviour as a symbol that he is no longer dead.
All in all, given his divine wisdom and love for metaphors and similes, I'd think Jesus would understand the point of the cross...
...then proceed to trash the place out of rage over the waste of money and effort that went into gaudy churches and gold-embroidered robes instead of helping the sick and poor.
Apparently it's an Israeli news outlet, which will color the way they put it
No, but their owners don't have the bulk buying power to negotiate for better prices with suppliers, the centralised management making the per-store-overhead more efficient, the employment power to push wages, the capital backing to run low prices without risking a bad month leaving a noticeable dent in their liquid assets or even run at a loss for as long as it takes for "lowest price" customers to flock to their stores and drive the local stores out of business.
When commenting on US politics, they should be aware of US political realities though. When taking position relative to US politics, they should be aware of that. At the very least, they should comment that they're progressive or something along the lines of "Our political orientation isn't represented in US politics" to acknowledge that, like you did.
But when your CEO endorses Republicans, pretending you're neutral isn't a good look.
It will still have the social platform inertia that keeps many people on Twitter despite wanting to leave. If enough of the other people you want to talk to are there, what good is leaving?
In the case of communities, it's even worse: you can possibly operate multiple platforms as an individual, but a community splitting its conversations across two platforms is now two communities. The best you can hope for is that most of the active members on the old (also) join the new and eventually bring their activity with them, but that relies on a lot of individual decisions.