Self-immolation is not mental illness any more than any other intentional sacrifice intended to support a cause. That soldier was no doubt taught that wearing the uniform may require the ultimate sacrifice for his comrades and country and that those who did so would be heroes, this is no different.
According to a screenshot shared by a user on social media platform X, Gemini was asked whether PM Modi is a ‘fascist’, to which the platform responded that he has been “accused of implementing policies some experts have characterised as fascist,” which based on factors like the “BJP’s Hindu nationalist ideology, its crackdown on dissent, and its use of violence against religious minorities”.
Gabbard didn’t have a shift, she was always shitty and people just didn’t notice. Her whole political background is socially conservative politics and she increased her profile during Obama’s term attacking him from the right on Fox News. Some people got infatuated by her quitting the DNC for Bernie, but that wasn’t because she was a progressive.
You’ve completely missed the point. This isn’t a situation where a negative claim is made by an opponent and then you get a chance to respond. The problem is that Joe Biden’s negatives are being injected into people’s minds, not by his enemies, but by Biden himself. You won’t have an opportunity to spin it, and any benefits from calling the Republicans anti-democratic chaos agents is muddied by simultaneously raising the salience of things they should prefer to be forgotten.
And spin can try to blunt damage, but it never completely neutralizes it. You want to be doing damage control as rarely as possible, because every time you’re doing it you’ve lost something.
It’s really hard to believe that this is a statement they wanted to put out there.
Reminds people that he’s really old and has been in government longer than most people have been alive.
Reminds people he was friends with those real racists.
Reminds people of his long history and own troubling past with racist politics.
Compares modern Republicans unfavorably to old racists, but not in that they’re more racist, but that they don’t believe in democracy. Maybe, if forced, people could come to the same conclusion about which of those things is worse, but it’s just not a great look to compare racism as being the not-as-bad thing.
This has to be one of those statements that strikes these egotistical old men and makes them think “I’m brilliant, no need to second guess, just say it” while their aide just looks on horrified.
And their target is specifically people who likely can’t think about Reddit, the company, objectively because being on Reddit, the website, is such a large part of their personality.
Then your argument is non-falsifiable, and therefore, invalid.
Wow this is some powerful internet word salad, just shot gunning scientific sounding words at the wall to try to pretty up a basic internet debate. Falsifiability is about scientific hypotheses, not statements of belief. “Nothing you can say can convince me that murder isn’t wrong” may mean there’s no further use in debate, but it isn’t “non-falsifiable” in any meaningful way nor does it somehow make the argument for the immorality of murder “invalid”.
By and large copyright infringement is illegal. That some things aren’t infringement doesn’t change that a general stance of “if I don’t have permission, I can’t copy it” is correct. The first argument in the EFF article is effectively the title: “it can’t be copyright, because otherwise massive AI models would be impossible to build”. That doesn’t make it fair use, they just want it to become so.
Naomi Klein is a real person with a real history of political opinions not controlled by shadowy Russian masterminds. Maybe, just maybe, you’re hearing this criticism all over the place because it’s actually a real issue and “must be Russians” is a comfortable mental shutoff to avoid thinking about how the ego of the most powerful person in the country could be leading us into political danger.
Microsoft doesn’t really want OpenAI to collapse since they own 49% of it. But if they could get all the people to recreate ChatGPT and not have the non-profit board impeding their profit potential, that would probably be worth losing their existing investment.
The employees are probably bluffing though, as their big payout is in selling their OpenAI stock.