@isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone

comments

• So in your examples, it went from making fun of a type of men, to referring to the overwhelmingly-male owners of hobby ranches, to referring to male surfers.

  When exactly was it ever gender neutral?

  on gender neutrule terminology in c/onehundredninetysix@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 15h ago

• Comrade!

  on gender neutrule terminology in c/onehundredninetysix@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 15h ago

• Don’t forget to eat your bean soup.

  on Protestors Ransack AI Lab, Leave Graffiti Calling on Masses to "Burn the Data Centers" in c/technology@lemmy.world · 15h ago

• Yeah, they took care of that too in the book.

  on AI staff 'genuinely frightened' for humanity's future, ex-Anthropic researcher tells BBC in c/technology@lemmy.world · 5d ago

• You’re confusing morals, knowledge, intent, and intelligence with capability. An atomic bomb has no will of its own either.

  on AI staff 'genuinely frightened' for humanity's future, ex-Anthropic researcher tells BBC in c/technology@lemmy.world · 5d ago

• It may be confined to man-made infrastructure, but that same infrastructure is what keep billions of people from starving to death. At this point, computers and networked systems are so baked in to every facet of our logistics chains and government that simply shutting it all down isn’t an option. The nightmare scenario is where rogue AI escapes the lab and copies itself to so many systems that the only way to kill it is to shut down every computer on Earth.

  on AI staff 'genuinely frightened' for humanity's future, ex-Anthropic researcher tells BBC in c/technology@lemmy.world · 5d ago

• Completely off-topic comment. None of this matters to what we’re talking about. Something doesn’t have to be sentient, sapient, or intelligent in a human way to be capable of demonstrating unpredictable, novel, and incredibly powerful behaviors. A steam engine is non-sentient, but it vastly exceeds human capabilities in certain applications. It’s no different for LLMs. You can stop talking about sentience. That’s not what we’re talking about here.

  Discussions of consciousness are off topic in these conversations. We’re discussing the threat posed by LLM-based systems, not whether they deserve rights.

  on Bernie Sanders proposes 20 year prison sentence for AI devs who plow ahead with Artificial Superintelligence plans - penalty on par with illegally developing rogue nuclear weapons in c/technology@lemmy.world · 17 Sep 2026

• Exactly. If we’re going to have these systems at all, they should be retroactive-only and require a warrant to access at all. For example, if some masked person robs a bank and gets away, at that point police can go to a judge and ask for a warrant to access the camera records. They can then hopefully use the records to catch the thief. But there should be no way to access the camera feeds live, and all access should require a warrant. In fact, the police shouldn’t even have accounts to access the cameras. There should be an office within the court system, and that office should be the only people that can access the camera footage.

  on Cops Search Thousands of Flock Cameras for Reasons of ‘LMAO,’ ‘IDK,’ ‘Hehe,’ and ‘asdfg’ in c/privacy@lemmy.ml · 15 Sep 2026

• I don’t really want to get off on a political tangent. I’m talking about how we should handle these things, not how the current admin would handle them.

  I use this internationalist language because it’s the only language that really captures the magnitude of the crime. We are a species that dominates this planet entirely due to our intelligence. We aren’t the fastest. We aren’t the strongest. We have neither sharp talons or fangs. We produce no poison or other biological defense mechanisms. The one thing and the only thing that has let us as a species control this world are our minds.

  This is the context that needs to be considered when contemplating the ethics of superintelligent AI. I don’t care how good your control measures are. This is the lesson from every ancient tale involving genies and other beings of great power bound. This is the conclusion of the whole academic field of AI alignment and safety. You can never control something more intelligent than you are. If you think you can, you’re a fool. I don’t care what incentives you give it. I don’t care how much you air gap it. I don’t even ultimately care if it’s conscious and has a sense of self. It is simply not possible to ever control a machine beyond a certain level of capability. Any way you can think to control it, it can think of a way to work around. (I know some folks bristle at the words “think”, but frankly there’s no practical way to talk about these systems without using anthropomorphized language.)

  If someone creates a superintelligent AI, they are not summoning a powerful servant. They are effectively creating a new species, one that will have its own motivations (even if just fulfilling its given instructions in dangerous and unpredictable ways.) And that competitor will operate in the exact same niche we do - physically helpless but still able to dominate the world through intelligence.

  I just can’t see doing this as anything other than betraying your own species. You’re creating something that has the potential, even if just a small potential, to drive your own species to extinction. You care so little for your fellow human beings that you’re willing to gamble the lives of not only everyone alive now, but all the future generations of humans yet to be born. Such an act is an unforgivable sin, a moral abomination. I do not even have the language to express how deeply evil it is for a human to create something with superhuman intelligence. It is quite literally treason against the human race. And the traditional penalty for normal treason is death.

  In my mind, if you do this, you are literally a traitor to the entire human race. You deserve to hang for this. Think about how we tried the Nazis at Nuremberg. And they only tried to commit genocide against a few racial and social groups. We’re talking about someone with such complete disregard for their fellow human that they are willing to risk human extinction for the sake of making a buck. I’m generally opposed to the death penalty. I don’t support it for ordinary murderers. But this? I’m sorry, but the penalty for treason against your own species should be death. If you are such an inhuman monster that you would gamble with the lives of two billion children? You need to hang for that. And I don’t care how many fools we have to string up to prevent this. I don’t care if it’s thousands. I for one really like humanity, regardless of all our flaws. And there is very little I would not support to protect our own existence.

  I have no idea if LLMs can ever really reach that level of threat. I have no idea how much of the models that are causing the hacks and issues now can really ever become a physical threat to human life. But I do know that we simply cannot allow anyone to build superhuman AI. (Again, ignoring for now whether existing models can ever actually reach that.) The existence of anything on this planet more intelligent than us is a threat to all of us. It is such an existential threat, that there is almost no action I wouldn’t take to prevent it. I would fight a nuclear war to prevent the creation of such an abomination. It’s one of the few cases where starting a nuclear war is actually a rational choice.

  on Bernie Sanders proposes 20 year prison sentence for AI devs who plow ahead with Artificial Superintelligence plans - penalty on par with illegally developing rogue nuclear weapons in c/technology@lemmy.world · 15 Sep 2026

• This attitude is right…until it isn’t. I’m sorry, but I’m not willing to gamble the existence of the human species on this. Anthropic is claiming that they’re building a machine that threatens the existence of the human race? Take their word for it. Charge them with treason. Treason against the human race. Hang the whole lot of them.

  At a certain level of threat, you have to take it seriously. You don’t get a do-over for human extinction. And this is what taking it seriously actually looks like, not regulation. If there is even a 10% chance that what they are building really is that dangerous, I have no moral objections with charging them all with treason. Use their own words as Exhibit A in the trial.

  I don’t care if they’re actually just a bunch of deluded fools who think they have something far more powerful than what they really do have. If they believe it, they believe that they’re gambling with the existence of the human race. Anyone with that level of reckless hubris and complete disregard for their fellow humans doesn’t deserve to keep their head on their shoulders.

  on LLMs are real, "AI" is fake in c/technology@lemmy.world · 15 Sep 2026

• Better idea. Let’s make it a capital offense. Call it “treason against mankind.”

  on Bernie Sanders proposes 20 year prison sentence for AI devs who plow ahead with Artificial Superintelligence plans - penalty on par with illegally developing rogue nuclear weapons in c/technology@lemmy.world · 15 Sep 2026

• This has big “I have to eat some food to live, so I suppose there’s no point in counting calories” energy.

  on One of AI’s Fiercest Critics Says All the Doom Talk Is ‘Meant to Distract Us’ in c/technology@lemmy.world · 14 Sep 2026

• No. It’s a watch alright. Like the night watch. It’s meant to be on the lookout and to judge. It’s meant to watch you.

  on Watch out: Apple timepiece can grab snippets of conversation without both speakers' consent in c/privacy@lemmy.ml · 12 Sep 2026

• Public symbols matter. If they didn’t, the right wouldn’t feel the need to target them. You dismiss public symbols of acceptance as if they’re not vitally important. I imagine if the symbols that represent you, your background, and your beliefs were targeted, suddenly you wouldn’t be dismissing them as irrelevant.

  Public symbols and rights are not disconnected. There’s a reason they advance or retreat in lockstep.

  on don't give them a rule in c/onehundredninetysix@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 11 Sep 2026

• It’s always a distraction until you’re the one affected by it.

  on don't give them a rule in c/onehundredninetysix@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 11 Sep 2026

• This won’t work if you have chronic pain caused by an actual condition or affliction. But honestly the greatest cure for most people to these types of aches and pains I’ve found is powerlifting. I’m a trans woman, and my husband and I started doing power lifting at the start of the year. It’s made huge difference in terms of these daily aches and pains. If you train your body to be able to handle the forces of lifting massive weights under controlled conditions, your body in turn is able to handle the regular needs of everyday life without pain or injury. Hell, even if someone has chronic pain caused by a condition, lifting could probably help them to some degree.

  Like many women, I stayed away from lifting for many years. I was concerned about growing large muscles, making my upper body too big, and looking masculine. But really, if you’re on trans fem HRT, as long as your T and E are in cis female ranges, you don’t have to worry about that. The only way you’re going to end up looking like a stereotypical female body builder is if you’re taking T or other steroids. Simply don’t do that, and you can build up the kind of strength that is very useful in everyday life. And it helps you avoid pain and injuries. And you can do that without risking building up masculine-looking muscles. It turns out trans women really don’t have an advantage over cis women in sports, and as long as you’re on properly calibrated HRT, you don’t have to worry about developing masculine muscle levels. And same for cis women obviously.

  But yeah, we both turn 40 next year. And honestly I’m in possibly the best shape of my life right now.

  on everything hurts .... in c/femcelmemes@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 9 Sep 2026

• Why wouldn’t a company this dedicated to advertising just install a cheap cell network modem in them? You’re talking pennies on a device that costs hundreds of dollars.

  on Your LG TV Might Be Spying on Your Entire Network While You Think It's Turned Off in c/technology@lemmy.world · 8 Sep 2026

• 

  “I AM the state. I am the Sun King. I am Louis XIV, absolute monarch and total ruler of France. Oh, you think my outfit is too feminine? You want to insult my manhood? Try it and see how long you keep your head on your shoulders.”

  on i never knew how badly i wanted this until just now in c/transmemes@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 8 Sep 2026

• I mean, fuck Musk, but the same would apply for literally any manufacturer of commercial or industrial equipment.

  By this logic ASML would never sell their world-leading computer chip lithography machines. They would just run their own production lines instead.

  On the other end of the cost spectrum, no manufacturer would ever sell robot vacuum cleaners or lawn mowers, instead contracting these out as cleaning services.

  The truth is companies will sell profitable machines to other companies simply because the entirety of civilization is built on the specialization of labor. This applies to both individuals and groups of individuals. Sure, ASML could raise capital and try to invest in their own chip fabs, but why? If they have the money to invest, they would be better off buying more equipment and hiring more employees to make more of the tools they already sell. This company’s machines are one of the major bottlenecks in global compute production. They can sell machines as fast as they can make them. They know how to make a really good lithography machine. They don’t know how to run a full fab well. Instead they focus on just their one part of the industry.

  Specialization of labor built civilization. It’s why we’re not still living in caves. I would never by a Cybercab because I don’t want to give money to nazis. And it’s actually likely that Musk is lying about the profitability of these things. At the same time, however, it is very poor logic to assume that simply because a company is selling a piece of commercial or industrial equipment means that equipment is unprofitable to own.

  on If a Tesla Cybercab fleet were profitable, Tesla wouldn't sell you one in c/technology@lemmy.world · 8 Sep 2026

• I’m not genuinely looking for help. I’m sharing my experiences not looking for tech support.

  on Discord Is Bringing Back Age Verification for Millions of Users in c/technology@lemmy.world · 7 Sep 2026

• I run a trans discord server for an IRL group. We’ve looked at alternatives for obvious reasons, but we’re still on discord. All the alternatives we looked at come with some compromises. Often they lack some critical feature of discord. And while self hosting is great for an individual, it becomes a liability for a group as now that one individual has a great deal of responsibility and power over the rest of the group. And some alternatives are no where near as approachable as discord.

  None of these problems are insurmountable, but they’re also not something that is as easy to brush aside as a lot of tech enthusiasts claim. Our current stance in our group is that we’ll stick with discord for now. If they start flagging our channel as adult content and demand ID to access it, at that point we’ll select one of the alternatives. The drawbacks of the other platforms aren’t deal breakers for us. But at present the hassle of discord’s bullshit isn’t enough for us to overcome the hassle of the alternatives and the transition. We’re aware of alternatives and keeping them in our back pocket, but for now we’re sticking with discord.

  on Discord Is Bringing Back Age Verification for Millions of Users in c/technology@lemmy.world · 6 Sep 2026

• Veltharune drimsola fenquith marvulen treskadi opheltrun brastivor kelmira vosteglan prindelth suvarin troshamel quendrilox flarimeth zovrikan meldritho pranvexi dulmaroth. Sylvarent trelphira monvexul dristalen vorquima helsadir krovanthis shalvoret primdoxa venlithar grostima relvokesh fendralune drisvokan melthira sovrindel praxomir helvutren treskalith vorimeth glenvaros prandilux shovrekan. Meldritho zenthavril dralvexin monshira keltrivan praxidorn velmorith morlavex shendrixa voltramir praxelune drimvotha.

  The above paragraph isn’t in standard readable English, but it presents an iron clad case for why you should follow language conventions in most cases. If you can’t read it, that’s a skill issue.

  on Love is love in c/lemmybewholesome@lemmy.world · 6 Sep 2026

• On Facebook, the most disgusting hate against trans people is explicitly allowed. If a trans person calls out bigotry, their account gets taken down for hate speech. It’s 1984 over there. Conservative billionaires run conservative websites.

  on Love is love in c/lemmybewholesome@lemmy.world · 6 Sep 2026

• Hate that I realize this but the only way this could actually work is if the element of illegality was also present in the art. I can’t imagine how else to write that than to have them drawing CSAM. :/

  on Breaking Rule in c/onehundredninetysix@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 5 Sep 2026

• I just don’t find building castles in the sky to be particularly productive. Will our environmental crises require major reforms to society? Yes. But if you think a climate crisis is the ideal time to finally produce the socialist utopia you dream of, you’re insane. Crises like these historically lead to totalitarianism and reduced social mobility.

  If your analysis doesn’t start with, “let’s start at the current state of the world and see how we can reform it,” you’re not being productive. We’ve been in this civilization game for 10,000 years. No one gets to start fresh with a blank slate. This is a relay race.

  on consent rule in c/onehundredninetysix@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 Sep 2026

• This all or nothing thinking is generally counterproductive to actual progress.

  on consent rule in c/onehundredninetysix@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 Sep 2026

• Well, to be fair, we know how to make both good guns and shit guns. We didn’t forget how to make crap guns; we just stopped making them. If we really wanted to, we could probably make deliberately poor guns intended just for dueling. We could make low-powered inaccurate guns. Make them low powered so that a lucky shot directly to the aorta would kill someone, but even a shot right in the center of mass won’t be lethal. And the low accuracy ensures a low chance of a critical hit.

  Now, there are bigger problems with the idea, as you note. But at least the firearms issue would be perfectly solvable through the manufacture of special dueling pistols.

  on consent rule in c/onehundredninetysix@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 Sep 2026

• People already gamble away their life’s savings at casinos. Some people will beat the odds, work their butts off, pay off their house, and manage to save enough for a comfortable retirement…just to get a gambling addiction and end up completely broke 5 years into retirement. A fortune built over a lifetime, meant to provide dignity in their silver years, swallowed up and gone in a moment. There is nothing stopping you today from literally gambling yourself into the gutter, and people do it every day.

  If it were legal, they would certainly gamble their very lives.

  on consent rule in c/onehundredninetysix@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 Sep 2026

• There’s not a realistic chance of that happening. There is a realistic chance of consent laws being changed to allow very easy access to assisted suicide and other things. One is a minor change to existing law, the other is a complete transformation of society. One belongs in real-world discussions of governmental policy, the other in political theory. When discussing the very real problems with consent and power imbalance in our real world, “just dissolve all power,” is not a serious solution.

  “Dissolve all power” is a good answer to the question, “what would an ideal society look like?” It’s a very poor answer to, “how do we avoid coercion in our medical aid in dying programs?”

  on consent rule in c/onehundredninetysix@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 Sep 2026

• Consent requires someone to be of sound mind though. Someone can’t consent to sex when they’re drunk. I would argue that there are some activities where simply consenting to them is demonstration of mental malady or incapacity. A rational and mentally well person would not consent to have themselves voluntarily killed by a serial killer. If you post an ad offering to let someone literally tear you to pieces, you’re clearly not of sound mind. Now, I’m not in favor of punishing people for surviving an attempted suicide, but I am perfectly fine punishing people who would take advantage of mentally unwell suicidal people by getting them to consent to all sorts of horrible and lethal things.

  It’s different in the case of medically assisted suicide that the person is not irrational. Someone of perfectly sound and rational mind can recognize that a slow, painful, and humiliating death is worse than a quick and painless one. If religion weren’t a factor, most people with diagnosis like Alzheimers or painful untreatable cancers would end up going that route.

  on consent rule in c/onehundredninetysix@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 Sep 2026

• I mean, it very literally does. The US built the postwar global economic system. And we built it in a way that was quite friendly to our interests.

  The US for instance controls the global system of payment transfers. And we can cut people and countries off from that system if it serves our interests. But this is a power you can only use very sparingly, ideally only in situations with broad international consensus. A friendly government isn’t going to lose sleep and start building their own payment systems after they see us sanction Al Qaeda. But if we start sanctioning their private citizens for peaceful activities that just happen to go against the politics of the man in the White House? Suddenly every friendly government has to worry they may be next. If allies as steadfast as Canada or Denmark can end up a US target, then no one is safe. That’s the kind of environment where governments start building their own alternative international payment networks. And the payment system is just one tool the US built in the post war period.

  Despite the US military, the US relies far more on soft power than hard power. Ultimately we’re less than five percent of the global population, and we’re a literal ocean away from most human beings. We don’t have the ability to impose our will on the world by force. Trump is learning this the hard way. We’ve only been able to maintain the influence we’ve had through soft power, mutually beneficial trade relationships, and through reasonably balanced military alliances.

  Trump is destroying all of that. Countries around the world were willing to accept US hegemony because the alternative would be risky, expensive, and on the whole just not worth the trouble. But when we abuse the tools that we have, then other nations have great incentive to find alternatives to the American options. And the more countries that do that? The weaker the US becomes.

  Soft power is just that, soft. At it’s most influential, it’s an aura you build around yourself to encourage the world to willingly follow you. If you try to beat someone over the head with soft power, the club made of soft power simply breaks in the attempt.

  on Should I be worried, as an individual, of the Autistici / Inventati precedent? in c/buyeuropean@feddit.uk · 4 Sep 2026

• The problem with trade embargos and sanctions is that if you use them excessively, you’re just sanctioning yourself.

  on Should I be worried, as an individual, of the Autistici / Inventati precedent? in c/buyeuropean@feddit.uk · 4 Sep 2026

• Some trans people change their sex characteristics, some don’t. Some of us quite literally change our sex in a multitude of ways. Some transition just gender. Some transition sex but not gender. And I don’t mean just genital surgery. I would argue HRT changes your sex.

  And it should be obvious where nonbinary people fit. It’s a bimodal spectrum, not two distinct categories separated by a chasm. Most folks lie on either end, but there’s plenty of room in the middle.

  on Woman_irl in c/transmemes@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 Sep 2026

• I can define a female and woman quite well.

  Sex is a continuous bimodal distribution. Every sexual dimorphic trait follows a distribution. For example, the penis and the clitoris are the same organ, and organs can grow in all forms in between. Still, the vast majority of the population is born with something on one end or the other of that distribution. Same for all sexually dimorphic traits. If most of your sexual traits are towards one end of the spectrum, your sex is male, the other female.

  And gender is on top of that. Society applies various values to the two sexes. Society classifies certain things as masculine, certain things as feminine. Society encodes many non-physical traits, behaviors, cultural practices, activities, etc. as masculine or feminine. A man is someone whose various gendered traits primarily align with the male sex cluster. A woman is the opposite. If you mostly want to do the male-coded things and be seen and treated as male, then you’re a man. If you want to do the female-coded things and be seen and treated as female, then you’re a woman. Having a few masculine hobbies doesn’t make someone a man. We’re talking broad averages here.

  Or more succinctly.

  Sex is a bimodal distribution. Culture creates two big blobs of traits mapped to each end of the sex spectrum. A man is someone who exists or wishes to exist in one of those cultural blobs, a woman the other.

  on Woman_irl in c/transmemes@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 Sep 2026

• If your plane crashes you experience surviving it, this should not surprise you. You cannot experience the alternative.

  on Main Character Syndrule in c/onehundredninetysix@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 Sep 2026

• The NY Times and Pearson, two of the most valuable US publishers, each have market caps of about $10 billion.

  Let’s say Pearson went after OpenAI. They devote an unlimited legal budget to the fight. OpenAI is hoping to IPO as a trillion dollar company. If Pearson went after OpenAI, rather than fight them in court, a deal could be reached first. If that didn’t work, if a deal couldn’t be reached, OpenAI could bypass the problem completely:

  1. Spend $5 billion to buy a controlling share of Pearson.
  2. Fire the entire leadership team and install OpenAI minions in their place.
  3. Once they control Pearson, sign a long-term licensing deal with OpenAI with very generous licensing terms and huge early cancellation fees.
  4. Sell the shares back on the market at a (likely slightly reduced) value.

  OpenAI would likely have to spend some money on net. The value of Pearson stock would likely be a bit lower after effectively giving away the rights to their works as training data. If signing a durable rights contract the new owners can’t escape isn’t practical, buying the company and simply holding it indefinitely would also be an option.

  on US government sides with OpenAI on issue of training LLMs on copyrighted material: »it is critical for the United States to ‘retain global leadership in artificial intelligence.« in c/technology@lemmy.world · 2 Sep 2026

• The problem with tariffs is once you use enough on them, you’re effectively imposing economic sanctions or a blockade on your own country.

  on US government sides with OpenAI on issue of training LLMs on copyrighted material: »it is critical for the United States to ‘retain global leadership in artificial intelligence.« in c/technology@lemmy.world · 2 Sep 2026

• If anyone ever does try to argue this in court, they’ll just change the justification to “national security.”

  We need the most powerful AI we can make because our rival nations are building their most powerful AIs. Our rivals are using their AI to control drone swarms, perform automated intelligence-gathering, do mass automated hacking, and perform influence operations. Wars are quickly devolving into battles of drone swarms vs drone swarms, and the limit is on the people needed to control the. Our rivals are revolutionizing their supply chains with AI. They may even be performing vast automated influence operations designed to target individual citizens. In the near future, if you’re an American citizen, the Chinese government will know who you are personally, have a file on you, and will be using AI to try and psychologically manipulate you. We need to be able to fight this! We simply have no choice but to keep up. National security demands it. Companies participating in national security-crucial AI development will be exempt from copyright laws.

  I’m no lawyer, but a law to allow this almost certainly already exists. US law is full of national security exemptions. For example, I’m pretty sure in wartime IP laws can be waived. If you’ve invented some amazing new technology with military applications? If the government comes knocking and you just refuse to sell to them or demand a completely impossible price, there has to be a mechanism in IP law for those rights to simply be waived, or the rights taken by a form of eminent domain. There’s probably some provision of copyright law that would allow a president to void certain copyrights in a national security emergency.

  on US government sides with OpenAI on issue of training LLMs on copyrighted material: »it is critical for the United States to ‘retain global leadership in artificial intelligence.« in c/technology@lemmy.world · 2 Sep 2026

• My mind immediately went there as well!

  on Lena means "lazy" (feminine form at least lmao) in Slovenian 😭 in c/transmemes@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 Sep 2026

• I got to say, a cisformer would be pretty convenient to own. It spends most of its time as a small fuel efficient sedan. But when it cisforms, its now a pickup truck capable of hauling a heavy load or towing a large trailer. That would be amazing!

  If anyone objects to me owning a sentient being, interpret the ownership as a sub/dom thing.

  on Ruleformers in c/onehundredninetysix@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 Sep 2026

• Their narrative ultimately comes from the repressed conservative gay community. Conservative gay people, when they notice they have same sex attraction, do not conclude they’re gay. They conclude that everyone must have these “temptations,” and that gay people are just the folks that give into these temptations that everyone apparently gets. You explain away your same-sex attractions or desire to change your sex as a temptation of the Devil.

  This is why seeing gay people in public doesn’t have the same effect as seeing straight people, in their minds. Think about it like waves of copycat suicides. When one person jumps off a bridge, it inspires others to do the same. That’s how conservatives view gay people being out. A gay person isn’t someone that has a characteristic some of the population are just born with. Gay people represent those who have given in to the temptation anyone can have, and seeing gay people normalizes it and encourages others to give in.

  It has the same logical coherence as “the only moral abortion is my abortion,” but this is how conservatives view being gay. It comes from the lens of the repressed gay community.

  on The cure! in c/onehundredninetysix@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 Sep 2026

• I’m calling the police right now to report you for the millions of crimes you could potentially commit over the next year.

  on Anthropic expected to tell investors it sees over $30 trillion in potential revenue, WSJ reports in c/technology@lemmy.world · 26 Aug 2026

• I’m calling the police right now to report you for the millions of crimes you could potentially commit over the next year.

  on Anthropic expected to tell investors it sees over $30 trillion in potential revenue, WSJ reports in c/technology@lemmy.world · 26 Aug 2026

• Before asking for a source for commonly known information, you should first demonstrate that you’ve done a modicum of searching yourself first.

  on Flock CEO calls for ‘compromise’ as surveillance company faces growing backlash | TechCrunch in c/technology@lemmy.world · 24 Aug 2026

• Here’s my compromise: we give the Flock CEO twenty to life instead of sentencing him to public flaying like he deserves.

  on Flock CEO calls for ‘compromise’ as surveillance company faces growing backlash | TechCrunch in c/technology@lemmy.world · 24 Aug 2026

• I love being vague about it and telling people things like, “sorry. I can’t step foot inside the State of Idaho. No, I cannot explain.”

  on Criminal in c/transmemes@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 19 Aug 2026

• Well in that case, you have to give the bus drivers rigorous training to reflect the cell phone policy. The bus driver absolutely should not have done that to your kid. That is not acceptable at all. However, that driver probably only did that because they knew your kid had a phone. If they instead knew that no kids in the school are allowed to have phones, they probably would never do something like that. It’s a giant legal liability for the bussing company.

  on Kansas Schools Now Collect Phones at the Door – Spends $180K On Smartphone Lockers in c/technology@lemmy.world · 18 Aug 2026

• There’s a big difference between, “I know my product will statistically increase the chance of early death across the population” and “I believe there is a very real chance my product will kill everyone.”

  All sorts of things increase risk. But child endangerment and similar laws are meant for very immediate and direct threats. OpenAI is building machines that they themselves believe could kill everyone. I see that as very similar to the idea of having fentanyl in the same house as young children. The fentanyl isn’t a danger because it will increase the chance of the kids getting lung cancer in their sixties. The fentanyl is a danger because one dose of it could kill a kid instantly. The law addresses immediate threats, not statistical increases in mortality observable across the population.

  on Young people increasingly don't trust AI - or the billionaires that keep telling us we should all love AI, survey finds in c/technology@lemmy.world · 16 Aug 2026

• I don’t just think AI should be regulated, I think everyone at the hyperscaler companies should be criminally indicted. Every employee at OpenAI and Anthropic working on AI development should be indicted on 8 million counts of child endangerment.

  The relevant statute is California 273a.

  It is a crime in the state of California to allow a child to be placed in a position where great harm could come to them. For example, people have been indicted under this statute because they had drugs in the same house as young children. Even if no children are actually hurt, simply putting them in a situation where harm is likely is the crime.

  It would normally be quite difficult to prove that the actions of OpenAI and others are endangering children. But the very words of these companies would be the first exhibit of the prosecution. They’ve openly confessed to their crimes! These very same companies and their leaders have repeatedly said that they’re building machines that they themselves believe have a reasonable chance of destroying humanity. And the children of California are a subset of humanity.

  Whether their claims are realistic or not, I cannot say. But I simply cannot believe that it is legal to build a machine that you yourself believe could destroy the world. We’re so glazed over by the novelty of AI that we forget to treat it like any other threat. In most places it is a crime to perform some action that you believe has a realistic chance of hurting people, even if you have no intention or desire to hurt people.

  Well, according to OpenAI, the machines they are building represent a very real risk to the life and safety of every child in the State of California. I see no reason that they shouldn’t be charged with millions of counts of child endangerment. According to their own words, they are literally putting the lives of children at risk. That is a crime. That is not legal. And we should stop pretending it is.

  on Young people increasingly don't trust AI - or the billionaires that keep telling us we should all love AI, survey finds in c/technology@lemmy.world · 16 Aug 2026

• I haven’t experienced it, but there are a few plausible explanations behind it. People who dismiss it out of hand just aren’t very creative thinkers. There are a few plausible hypotheses.

  One I’ve heard. Some searching suggests even cis men experience a slight monthly hormone cycle. It’s not as noticeable as that of cis women, as the hormone fluctuations aren’t as large and there’s no externally visible symptoms. So whatever mechanism that causes cis men to have a monthly hormone cycle, whatever signal is triggering that cycle, would likely be present in trans women. And when a trans woman goes on estrogen, that monthly signal could trigger symptoms more familiar with the female cycle. Things like cramping and diarrhea. As far as why only some trans women experience this? Only some cis women get noticeable cramping or period shits. Plenty of cis women have periods largely uneventful aside from the bleeding. If your genetics have a predisposition to period cramping and digestive issues, then that will be activated when you switch to an estrogen-dominant system.

  The key to all of this is that it wouldn’t actually be the hormones themselves triggering the symptoms. (As trans women’s hormone levels are usually pretty constant, any monthly pattern would have to be triggered by the mechanisms that cause hormones to vary monthly in cis men or cis women in the first place.)

  A second possibility I don’t see discussed is that it may simply be endometriosis. Trans women don’t have uteruses, but we can grow uterine tissue in certain cases. It hasn’t been studied really at all, so we have no idea of the prevalence of it, but case reports do exist. There’s been more but still limited information on endometriosis among cisgender men who underwent long-term estrogen therapy for prostate cancer. But there really hasn’t been any extensive study of the prevalence. For all we know the majority of trans women who’ve been on long-term HRT could be walking around with some amount of unnoticed uterine tissue. It’s never been studied; we have no idea how common it is.

  Really a lot of this could be explained by trans women getting endometriosis. At first it seems absurd, but it really shouldn’t be. Trans men get bottom growth. Testosterone doesn’t cause a clitoris to grow into a full-sized penis, but it does grow and develop certain penile tissues and penile characteristics. Why shouldn’t trans women get a version of bottom growth? Bottom growth is noticeable for trans men because male reproductive organs are external to the body. The trans woman equivalent of bottom growth would be entirely internal.

  What would really be happening is that a stunted and very limited version of the uterine development that occurs in female fetuses in utero. At the locations where the uterus grows, a limited amount of uterine tissue would grow instead. And if a trans woman grows uterine tissue growing around her colon or intestines, having that tissue trigger period-like symptoms suddenly doesn’t seem so absurd.

  on Perky Upsides in c/transmemes@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 16 Aug 2026