site banner
Advanced search parameters (with examples): "author:quadnarca", "domain:reddit.com", "over18:true"

Showing 25 of 199376 results for

domain:abc.net.au

Toggle simplified reader view (available in Brave and Chrome, I think, the button is next to the bookmark star); or open the page style and remove the font from the rules (right click on the text -> Inspect -> in the "filter styles" box write font-family -> uncheck all the rules setting the "Charm" font).

The likely worst-case legal scenario is a lawsuit followed by settling out of court for a trivial amount.

Depends on what you consider trivial. TraceWoodgrains pointed to Midler v Ford in California, and it's foundational for Californian law, but the punchline is that Ford got off scot free, and the ad agency in question was hit for 400k USD. But that's because Midler was an issue of first impression at the time, limiting evidence of 'evil motive'; contrast the later Waits v Frito where Frito-Lay and its advertising company got tapped for a combined $2m USD over an ad that "broadcast in September and October 1988 on over 250 radio stations located in 61 markets nationwide" (though the advertising company had verbally offered to indeminfy Frito-Lay before running the ad). Contrast in turn White v. Samsung, where a literal robot acting as but clearly not Vanna White, which rhymes with today's problem, and ended up at 400k USD over a fiery dissent.

It's not business-ending, at least for a business OpenAI's size -- even adjusted for inflation and for how much Californian juries hate tech companies, I'd expect closer to 1m than 100m. But for all the philosophical problems with an expansive right of publicity, it's not toothless.

the guide @No_one posted the other day on what men are actually attracted to (https://www.jsanilac.com/dispelling-beauty-lies/).

Is that available anywhere in a non-stupid font? I probably wouldn't mind reading it but the typeface makes my eyes bleed.

Scarlett Johansson doesn't have an IP right to "female voices that sound vaguely like Scarlett Johansson." As long as they can produce the receipts to show that this is actually what happened, she'd have no case.

No, but she has the rights to her own likeness, which OpenAI wanted to use. Did they? That could only be known through trial, it takes one sympathetic judge to hear the case and start discovery. And I find it extremely plausible that, on a large software engineering team, someone said something bad in an email. And a settlement wouldn't look good for OpenAI's PR either.

It sounds like they wanted to use ScarJo's voice all along, got too far in development, asked permission, got rejected, and then salvaged by picking an actress who was a close as possible. A lot of work goes into these things, cadences, pitch, pronunciation; once you're far enough in you can't change voices without changing a lot of other work. I doubt it was malicious, but I wouldn't call it totally honest.

As for the "her" tweet, that could mean anything. I never watched the movie and had to have explained to me how these two things connected. I don't have an especially high opinion of tech CEOs but I imagine Altman wasn't literally thumbing his nose at ScarJo. If he were, he's open-and-shut the villain, and my opinion if tech CEOs isn't that low.

Disagree with the posters saying this is nothing or even a win for OpenAI. ScarJo is popular, tech CEOs are not, and ScarJo has something of a case. This absolutely will have sway with people at the White House, or Brussels, who are looking for excuses to meddle in AI. And it only takes one sympathetic judge to establish a precedent that makes it harder for everyone. OpenAI will be fine, of course, because more and more regulation will ensconse them in a nice monopoly. Sorry anon, AI is too dangerous, and it looks like you don't have a license.

Do you mind posting the poem in Finnish

I think I just realized I had been mixing up Rashida Jones and Johannssons voice this whole time

I like Lindsay's take on the whole DEI. Paraphrasing:

Diversity means whatever is opposing the cultural hegemony. That is why room full of women feminists can be diverse and why Larry Elder can be a Black Face of White Supremacy. So in practice, diversity means that you have to welcome subversive elements into the company/movement/club or whatever, diversity needs to be ensured by cadre of political commissars who themselves are experts on diversity.

Inclusion means that you are welcoming to "diversity", it is making sure that the subversive elements can have free reign. The basic form of inclusion is basically censorship - you will be subject to certain "ethical standards", that you will not do hate speech or microagressions. The advanced level of inclusion is called belonging, this means that you now have to be active and supportive of these elements: you have to put pronouns into your bio, you have to get rainbow keychain for your company card and so forth.

Equity means adjusting shares in order to make citizens A and B equal on basis of diversity. This is your cookie cutter socialist redistribution so that subversive elements get necessary resources to thrive and multiply, but now expanded to other domains such as positions of power inside companies or in casting of movies or moderating teams of some random forum. As with other socialist movements that were also very keen on redistribution, it has to be enforced by diversity and inclusion experts - those are the vanguard forces that will at first enforce equitable society until this becomes automatic as when socialism is supposed to voluntarily turn into communism.

Russians believed defenses were going to crumble because enough people are bribed. They targetted anti-air installations etc but iirc weren't even hitting command posts and definitely not blowing up soldiers in barracks. It was no 'Shock & Awe'.

That changed after it became clear it'll go on. They blew up almost the entire 'International Legion' base, with the exception of one building where both missiles were intercepted and/or failed. It wasn't executed perfectly, the missiles didn't arrive within a brief window so most people got out..

I would like to think it wouldn’t have happened.

Nah. It'd have happened, the difference is they'd not have underestimated it. Russia is a state born in warfare. They're not blessed by protective seas like Americans or Britain. And after WW2, you can hardly blame them wanting to keep neutral states on their border.

Sure, these days you can always just nuke the invaders after they cross the border, and it's not even a big deal contamination wise. But the idea is not instinctively attractive to most people.

So is this failure because of corrupt or incompetent procurement? Or were we just not expecting it to come to this?

Recent funny factoid I learned. The weapon Lancet was inspired with, Israeli Hero-120 was sold to Hungary for $350k per suicide drone. Russian Lancets were on export for $35k. Actual price to build them is almost certainly <$10k even in low series production.

Switchblade 600, an equivalent weapon, costs $120k. These are all electric drones without thermal sights with comparable ranges.

Is this efficiency?

Ubisoft doesn't pride itself on diddly squat. A heartless automaton husk free of imagination or spirit is the perfect description of ubisoft.

In what world is using image or voice of some actress "evil" especially when he took it down after one strongly worded letter? This is a ridiculous standard of morality to me.

It flows out of getting to know somebody.

Well, yeah. You pick the most attractive somebody you can find, go on a couple dates, fuck, get tired of their shit/discover they actually weren't that great in the first place/discover someone even better, and move on. Rinse, repeat.

Some of us just appear to have a much tighter loop for that for whatever reason, operating in days or weeks rather than months or years. (And to be fair, I don't necessarily blame them; some people just don't have the personality traits to even entertain the possibility of a short-term relationship.)

As an aside, she (like most people TBF) seems pretty oblivious to evolutionary psychology, and what sex and virginity meant to illiterate goat herders with no access to antibiotics or pregnancy tests or STD tests [edit: or economic niches for women outside of dowry prostitution, which is how marriage worked back then] and how that shaped sexual strategies and the evolution of our emotions and culture.

Which creates problems when the people who do understand it (and can put that understanding into practice) feel the need to redesign social systems for those who can't. I think the people that can internalize this might as well be a different gender (for better or worse), and that problems of the type common to gay-X-married-to-straight-Y occur when only one party is like that.

Were no men trying for long term relationships with her?

She's straight. As such, she wants to be the only woman in the relationship; dealing with womanlier men is not what she wants. (Of course, the cost of that is dealing with a straight man, and straight men are making the calculation that they can do better than her.)

Hunting heretics/Muslims/Jews gets conflated with hunting witches.

I don't think there's ever been a point where a given leader was race or gender-swapped

A half-example: the female Zulu leader in Civ 2 was a gender-swapped Shaka.

https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Zulu_(Civ2)

It's an indication someone is thinking before speaking. Unless you give someone an actual question that requires thinking through, it's very unusual to be like that and it instantly makes me suspicious.

The guy did it constantly.

I think there's a significant possibility of disagreement on that point. Wasn't Athena the goddess of war?

Athena was the goddess of war and wisdom, i.e. strategy. While she was portrayed with a helmet and a spear, she- and her following cities like Athens- weren't really known for mobilizing the women into formations. She is much more of an advisor / general archetype than a warrior.

Option 1) Play the bigger man. Pardon himself, obviously, and a few limited other people. Beyond that do nothing. This will prevent a wider conflagration in the culture war. Downside: without a tit-for-tat, the left will be emboldened for much greater tats in the future.

Are you saying you didn't write this?

Also, the piece I replied to was your direct response to the question, referring directly to what I've quoted above, "Is there any time you can point to where he's behaved with such magnanimity?". Like, it's literally what you gave as an example of that, or so anyone would think from reading that part of the thread. I think the "misunderstanding", if it is that and not just revisionist history, is pretty damn understandable.

In practice, "inclusion" means conformity to the ideology. For example, the mere presence of a conservative expressing non-progressive opinions will make a space non-inclusive. All kinds of diversity are welcome except that diversity which is non-inclusive, and so that actually means a rather narrow range of diversity limited to "historically marginalized groups" of race, gender, and sexuality.

Obviously not the parent poster, but one glaring thing about the whole essay is that she doesn't seem to waste a single word of reflection on what she, or the other women she talks about, could have done to avoid the bad outcomes they experienced. A good start would be to spend some thought on questions like: why was I attracted to the guy that turned out to be a jerk? What did he say that made me believe he would be or do something he actually wouldn't? Could I have recognised the deception beforehand? Were some experiences better than others? What set those apart? Is there a way I could optimise in that direction in the future? Instead, she is lamenting it in the fashion of people who complain that everything on TV is boring, or social media addicts who lament that their social media is toxic and make periodic shows of quitting it, only to inevitably come back and resume being prime contributors to it being toxic for everyone else.

That should only exist when you're scrolling upwards.

There are excessively few high quality women having kids in the west even controlling for earlier sexual activity. The high breeders in the west are muslims and blacks and latinos, with only latinos being able to reliably reach class escape velocity. Most new kids are net negative, and the Asians have bet on robots. Not necessarily the best bet, but if their societies collapse it'll just fall over dustily, not ruined from within by disgruntled 'minorities'.

Isn’t there a group 4 who just finds it creepy as her was dystopian? Then there is group five who call a certain terrorist-cum-philosopher Uncle Ted.

Um actually black samurai were totally a thing historically. But even if they weren't, why does it matter and why are you so bothered about an ahistoric depiction of a black man pairing up with a young Japanese woman to kill a bunch of Japanese men? It's only a video game.

We need a general name for this two-step strategy of a claim + poisoning the well: P, and if you argue against P, then you are ungoodthinker.

The common theme generally being some form of coming from a fairly repressive sub culture, focusing hard on education/career until finally getting to 26-27 and their parents' reproach shifted from 'When are you becoming a doctor' to 'When am I becoming a grandparent'.

This is a kind of stupid on the part of the Asian (South or East, at least based on my British experience) parents that makes the stupid in Western sexual culture look mild. Enjoy your 0.8 TFR, Chonky.

Back in the day, fathers and brothers would take it upon themselves to defend the woman's honor. If a man slept with a woman under false pretenses of a long-term relationship and then just abandoned her, they would beat the crap out of him, ostracize him, and possibly even kill him.

In goatfucker patriarchy, male family members would "defend a woman's honour" by killing her first. Whether they go on to deal with the man depends on the clan politics of the situation - punishing him is a nice-to-have for the standard honour-culture reasons, but not a social obligation. Farha Khalidi is Arab and claims to have been raised in an at least somewhat traditional Arab Muslim family, so she is seeing this through the lens of goatfucker patriarchy, not Christian purity culture. This is based on a (correct) assumption that getting into a situation where illicit sex can happen almost always involves mutual co-operation, and also on the practical issue that the no-longer-virginal woman is damaged goods regardless of fault and therefore her continued existence is embarrassing to the family.

The notorious Jeb Rubenfeld rape article points out that similar ideas exist in the English common law of rape - before feminism, "rape" was a carve-out for the small subset of illicit sex which was 100% the man's fault. Trad Christian culture solved this problem with shotgun weddings, which are not okay in a culture with strong arranged marriage norms. Modern Christian purity culture deals with it by denying the agency of teenage girls and allowing Daddy to lie to himself that she was mind-controlled into it by Chad's magic thunder cock, so punishing Chad is a sufficient solution.