KillingTimeItself

yet another classic misdirection from doing things politically to improve the political environment. And yet we wonder why everything sucks so much.

Go improve the political climate.

We need maps of what helps, and how much.

political ground campaigning, probably.

I mean the point of it isn’t to deprive retailers of one day of profits altogether, it’s to show how much a sustained refusal to shop would hurt them. Whether or not it’s effective depends on how many people participate.

yeah but its not a question of whether or not it would hurt them, the answer is yes, you cant make money if people don’t buy shit.

Weird little story, but i’ve never seen a company do any sort of accounting for this kind of problem.

so, US presidential elections are weird, because the states have a significant deal of authority when it comes to running the presidential election, this is why the things like the amendment 14 thing happened prior to the election. States have a CONSIDERABLE amount of authority over these to a point where any sort of conjoined fraud would be incredibly difficult.

If we get to a point where the fed goes “fuck it three term presidents” and the states go “uh, nuh uh” you can basically tank an entire election by simply not putting that candidate on the ballot, the question is whether or not this holds up in the supreme court, the answer, should be yes, because that’s what the constitution says, and you can bet your ass it won’t be amended anytime soon. So there would either have to be MASSIVE levels of collusion in the federal government (to the point that a civil war is likely to start) or it would be like two states that don’t put the candidate on the ballot.

It’s a very surefire way to cause problems in an election, and it gets messy very very quickly, so the federal government at all costs should stay far away from this.

Also, regarding state law, im guessing a lot of states have similar term limits, i’m not sure any have any explicit term limits of presidential terms, but given that it’s in the constitution, i’m guessing a few of them have that somewhere. If not in their constitution directly.

that’s great, i didn’t ask what the shitty name of the shitty article was. I want to know what fucking happened.

(also, as of right now it appears to be identical to when i first made the comment)

This shocking moment at a GOP town hall in Idaho is a foreboding sign

my two biggest concerns are accessibility, and privacy. I want it to be both, accessible, and private, card readers accomplish this to a significant, and universally accepted degree. I can understand a subscription service being based on something a little different, or an auto charge mechanism similar to tesla super chargers, but that should be an option, not the sole means of interacting with it, because then it lends to really shitty behavior on the side of the company operating it.

The subscription thing is understandable, but the unfortunate reality is that this is going to be a contract law problem, rather than any other problem, you are legally agreeing to a monthly payment model at some point in the checkout, otherwise it wouldn’t be legal. Shitty laws and consumer protection problems really.

My credit card does rotate the numbers a bit but I keep meaning to find one that can generate different virtual cards per service so I can turn a virtual card off when they get abusive with it or when they leak it

it’s funny actually, i wonder if checks will see a comeback, with all the shitty services that exist now, it’s a very explicit way of paying for a transaction. I don’t really have a huge problem with auto charging systems, most of the time banks can even unfuck some really funny shit if you need them to, though that gets into a different world very quickly. The subscription problem is an interesting one though, my solution is just avoid them at all costs, because it’s a parasitic drain. So far i’ve succeeded in that. Also having a minimal amount of subscriptions really helps you to keep them in check, because there are only so many that can exist.

yeah and it’s “looking like” and here we are on a post literally titled “At least it will be well documented for future historians”

this is so far removed from “well it’s a real possibility”

and yet, in most cases, it pretty roughly aligns with popular vote sentiment. The only difference is that the congress would have a significantly different makeup, whether or not that changes much is a different question.

Been trying that for decades and it hasn’t worked.

ok great news, you can like, do political ground work, today, for free even. Just go outside and talk to people, im sure there are even organizations that will assist you and provide you material to go and do it for them. It’s not hard.

Don’t vote for the lesser evil

unless voting for the lesser evil is that path that leads to that point. Because otherwise you’re stuck voting third party, which is a meme. Or not voting at all, and look where that has gotten us thus far lmao.

uh, no? These are literally two irrelevant concepts.

If you want to complain about the fact that the biden/harris admin have less than desirable stances on the israel/palestine problem, by all means do that. But i don’t see how this is relevant to anything to do with beating trump. Because the statistics literally show that 75 million people voted for kamala harris this election. to the 77 million who voted for trump. Could that specific issue push her over the edge? Maybe, maybe not. It’s impossible to know unless you do incredibly in depth study on it.

This is literally the meme of “if only it wasn’t slightly too cold for me to comfortably go on a run right now, otherwise i would totally be taking care of my physical fitness, instead i will do nothing.”

So disingenuous. The DNC targeted voters that don’t even exist.

and yet people went to the rallies? People were excited about the election, people felt good until it happened. And then everybody flipped like a switch and went edgy teen “i’m going to do something really bad” mode immediately after.

Their strategy on the economy was to gaslight voters and tell them that nothing would change from the president who had a 38% approval rating.

which to be fair, was accurate, and is true, all of their claims are factually correct, the problem is that voters are stupid, and politicians struggle to get this point across to their idiot supporter base appropriately for some reason. The consumers tend to feel the effects of a recession, in a lagged period. Think about covid, not many people struggled through covid, it was easier than most people thought it would be, it’s the inflation that happens after that really causes problems. The economy tends to do significantly better through these periods of inflation, which is why the inflation happens. To stem the growth to more reasonable levels. Otherwise you have some really funny shit happen.

that nothing would change from the president who had a 38% approval rating.

find me any evidence of approval rating meaning literally anything. Please.

A president who spent 4 years yelling at then that everything was fine in the middle of a housing crisis with record inflation.

the record inflation happened after covid, at the end of the four year term, nobody should’ve been surprised by this, it was an established and expected thing that was going to happen, but for some reason everybody now pretends like inflation never should’ve happened, because covid “wasn’t that bad actually” even though it was a literal failure of the global shipping industry. Of course the inflation is going to be pretty bad, that’s literally how Keynesian economics work.

The whining about “unfair” criticism is unbelievable. Give me a break. The Democratic leadership is completely out of touch with voters.

there is argument to be made about the DNC being out of touch, and just generally incompetent. However people mostly just like to bitch and yell I.E. your comment, rather than do anything to actually fix the fucking issue, and i guess hoping for a golden goose to show up and suddenly fix everything, even though that’s literally not how this works, and we BOTH know this. We ALL know this.

BUT FOR SOME REASON WE CHOOSE TO IGNORE IT WHEN IT’S MOST CONVENIENT.

edit: the housing crisis was in part instated by trump admin era tariffs on canadian lumber? Literally has nothing to do with that admin.

sort of. There are arguments that private ownership of these videos is also weird and shitty, however i think impersonation and identity theft are going to the two most broadly applicable instances of relevant law here. Otherwise i can see issues cropping up.

Other people do not have any inherent rights to your likeness, you should not simply be able to pretend to be someone else. That’s considered identity theft/fraud when we do it with legally identifying papers, it’s a similar case here i think.

yes, and that’s my problem with these posts, they act as if america is currently in the process of the soviet collapse, problem is, we are literally nowhere near that stage of progression, if we even get there at all.

that’s what people keep telling me, but the worst thing to happen is DOGE making up numbers, and trump changing the head of the military (no martial law has been enforced, nothing interesting has happened)

There have been a literal million counter suits in regards to every single thing the trump admin has done, those people are still alive, they aren’t getting defenestrated yet.

I’m really trying to see it happening, but all i’m seeing is bad things happening, not the destruction of a country.

revenge porn, simple as. Creating fake revenge porn of real people is still to some degree revenge porn, and i would argue stealing someones identity/impersonation.

To be clear, you’re example is a sketch of johnny depp, i’m talking about a video of a person that resembles the likeness of another person, where the entire video is manufactured. Those are fundamentally, two different things.

i think that it should probably be capable of consent, that would be my guess.

what is the law’s position on AI-generated child porn?

the simplest possible explanation here, is that any porn created based on images of children, is de facto illegal. If it’s trained on adults explicitly, and you prompt it for child porn, that’s a grey area, probably going to follow precedent for drawn art, rather than real content.

Is the output a grey area, even if it seems like real rape?

on a base semantic and mechanic level, no, not at all. They aren’t real people, there aren’t any victims involved, and there aren’t any perpetrators. You might even be able to argue the opposite, that this is actually a net positive, because it prevents people from consuming real abuse.

Now another hypothetical. A person closes their eyes and imagines raping someone. “Real” rape. Is that a grey area?

until you can either publicly display yours, or someone else process of thought, or read peoples minds, definitionally, this is an impossible question to answer. So the default is no, because it’s not possible to be based in any frame of reality.

Let’s build on that. Let’s say this person is a talented artist, and they draw out their imagined rape scene, which we are 100% certain is a non-consensual scene imagined by the artist. Is this a grey area?

assuming it depicts no real persons or identities, no, there is nothing necessarily wrong about this, in fact i would defer back to the first answer for this one.

We can build on that further. What if they take the time to animate this scene? Is that a grey area?

this is the same as the previous question, media format makes no difference, it’s telling the same story.

When does the above cross into a problem?

most people would argue, and i think precedent would probably agree, that this would start to be a problem when explicit external influences are a part of the motivation, rather than an explicitly internally motivated process. There is necessarily a morality line that must be crossed to become a more negative thing, than it is a positive thing. The question is how to define that line in regards to AI.

Watching videos of rape doesn’t create a new victim. But we consider it additional abuse of an existing victim.

is this a legal thing? I’m not familiar with the laws surrounding sexual abuse, on account of the fact that i don’t frequently sexually abuse people, but if this is an established legal precedent that’s definitely a good argument to use.

However, on a mechanical level. A recounting of an instance isn’t necessarily a 1:1 retelling of that instance. A video of rape for example, isn’t abuse anymore so than the act of rape within it, and of course the nonconsensual recording and sharing of it (because it’s rape) distribution of that could necessarily be considered a crime of it’s own, same with possession, however interacting with the video i’m not sure is necessarily abuse in it’s own right, based on semantics. The video most certainly contains abuse, the watcher of the video may or may not like that, i’m not sure whether or that should influence that, because that’s an external value. Something like “X person thought about raping Y person, and got off to it” would also be abuse under the same pretense at a certain point. There is certainly some interesting nuance here.

If i watch someone murder someone else, at what point do i become an accomplice to murder, rather than an additional victim in the chain. That’s the sort of litmus test this is going to require.

That’s the gray area. AI is trained on images of abuse (we know it’s in there somewhere).

to be clear, this would be a statistically minimal amount of abuse, the vast majority of adult content is going to be legally produced and sanctioned, made public by the creators of those videos for the purposes of generating revenue. I guess the real question here, is what percent of X is still considered to be “original” enough to count as the same thing.

Like we’re talking probably less than 1% of all public porn, but a significant margin, is non consensual (we will use this as the base) and the AI is trained on this set, to produce a minimally alike, or entirely distinct image from the feature set provided. So you could theoretically create a formula to determine how far removed you are from the original content in 1% of cases. I would imagine this is going to be a lot closer to 0 than it is to any significant number, unless you start including external factors, like intentionally deepfaking someone into it for example. That would be my primary concern.

That’s the gray area. AI is trained on images of abuse (we know it’s in there somewhere). So at what point can we say the modified images are okay because the abused person has been removed enough from the data?

another important concept here is human behavior as it’s conceptually similar in concept to the AI in question, there are clear strict laws regarding most of these things in real life, but we aren’t talking about real life. What if i had someone in my family, who got raped at some point in their life, and this has happened to several other members of my family, or friends of mine, and i decide to write a book, loosely based on the experiences of these individuals (this isn’t necessarily going to be based on those instances for example, however it will most certainly be influenced by them)

There’s a hugely complex hugely messy set of questions, and answers that need to be given about this. A lot of people are operating on a set of principles much too simple to be able to make any conclusive judgement about this sort of thing. Which is why this kind of discussion is ultimately important.