𝙲𝚑𝚊𝚒𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚗 𝙼𝚎𝚘𝚠

If it turns out that it gets ruled as copyright violations, you can bet your ass they’re going to reform copyright law instead of rolling everything back.

Extremely wide screen. It’s not great tbh.

I mean probably, this idiot is mostly just useless and spends his time defending stupid changes like that bestiality shit. He seems to think his position is mostly just for his own fun or something. That’s fairly harmless compared to the rest of the cabinet. The potential to great harm is there, sure, but he’s too big of a dumbass to realize it.

The other two you mentioned have many deaths on their hands. I’d qualify that as worse.

Well that was also discussed, the person who suggested not having an AI disclosure was against it being used for advertising, but was also open to having a general one that didn’t allow the company/model. Not sure that discussion has concluded yet btw.

Quokkas are adorable little shits, I’d love to have one as a pet.

There was some discussion on that still. Some people wanted to avoid having AI companies basically get free advertisements in PRs.

The Communist Party USA (CPUSA) was banned in 1954 under Eisenhower, which a federal court eventually deemed unconstitutional 19 years later.

Yes

Microsoft successfully did that somewhere near Scotland iirc.

They justify it by claiming the CCP has their fist so far up those billionaire asses that really it’s the proletariat controlling all that wealth all along!

That was the obvious point about folklore, where any offspring of incest is thought of as some disfigured hobo tard.

I never claimed this. You were arguing a strawman argument. I think we’re done here if you’re not going to argue in good faith.

And the few countries where same-sex got through usually happened because of a loophole (criminal code explicitly mentioning vaginal penetration), not the reason you hallucinated.

It’s a directly cited reason in a constitutional challenge to the law in March 2008. Feel free to Google it, you should try that sometime before you start claiming hallucinations.

And spare me the high school genetics talk. It’s curious how you glossed over the folklore about how a bad gene will come to exist if it was never carried in the first place.

What do you even mean by a “bad gene”. There’s dominant and recessive genes. Some can cause disorders, many of those recessive. With recessive genes, both parents can carry it and be fine, but offspring may not be. There’s no point arguing until you show you understand how this works. I’m not arguing some strawman where this happens through magic, I’ve been very explicit I’m talking about autosomal recessive disorders, which is very well known and well understood.

I’ve literally cited an entire corpus of studies that you keep dismissing as “folklore”. You can look at any of them and see you’re wrong. At this point you either get to cite a study showing it’s fine, or you should accept you’re wrong.

Tricky thing is that these LLMs aren’t very good systems designers, and that even for seemingly basic task someone needs to check if it’s doing what it is supposed to do. For complex systems, that requires senior developers.

But if you don’t hire junior devs anymore, who’s going to replace those seniors once they leave?

Criminal codes around adult incest punishes both parties

Many countries don’t actually criminalize this. In less densely populated countries it’s more likely to be illegal due to the risk of medical complications for any potential offspring. In countries like Germany, same-sex incestuous relationships are actually legal because of this.

Feel free to actually source scientific facts and concrete numbers. Maybe what is believed to be “high-school biology” is the problem. The folklore part is beliefs that defects can be born out of otherwise healthy individuals (e.g. with no carried bad genes, in high-school biology parlance).

Here’s an entire list: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/immunology-and-microbiology/inbreeding

Autosomal recessive disorders is the word you’re looking for. I have no idea which Croatian study you’re talking about. The logic is pretty basic, recessive disorders only present if you’re carrying two copies of a certain gene, and that’s much more likely if both of your parents share many of their genes since both are likely carriers of the recessive gene if it’s in the family, hence they can both pass it on, meaning the odds of getting the disorder are vastly increased.

What makes it taboo, what is it precisely that is taboo, what reference ideology/statues (if any) is it based on

It being an extremely strong indicator of sexual abuse, increased medical risks for potential offspring (and their subsequent offspring, so the population at large), largely originated from the innate instinct to avoid incestuous mating shared by many other animals with biparental parenting structures. It’s not ideological in origin, it’s biological and instinctual.

The laws in the modern nation state and how they come into existence fundamentally lack that logical rigor, irrespective of the topic at hand.

If you don’t believe any laws match this criteria then it’s just a bunch of gish-gallop and not worth bringing up.

The skeleton shows some very clearly female hips though. I don’t think this looks like two people.

Failed logic, since that premise implies abuser-victim dynamics are the default

With incest it is the default. In two-thirds of incestuous relationships one party is underage. Usually it’s the father abusing a daughter. Familial bonds are almost by definition a power-dynamic where consent cannot be guaranteed. In the vast majority of cases, there’s underlying abuse.

Incestuous relationships are only punished in one direction (e.g. the abuser is punished, not the victim). It’s illegal to serve as a much easier lever to get a conviction, to protect victims. And it is, based on about every study you can find on the subject, very successful in this endeavour.

But that would be relevant if we are operating within a coherent logical framework in the first place. And western political ideologies (including communism) are based on the feelings of the plurality, or the whims of the guarding party.

Incest is generally considered taboo in many cultures around the world, western and non-western.

Former western (public) arguments against incest (and “inbreeding”, extending to cousin marriage) were based on fake medical/genetic/… concerns that were fully based on mythical folklore that still partially survives.

You could argue this for cousin-relationships, but anything closer does in fact increase the chances of genetic defects. The effects of inbreeding are very well known. Even with cousins, multi-generational inbreeding can cause defects. Autosomal recessive disorders are simply much more likely (it’s basically high-school biology, not “folklore”). Various animals also show inbreeding avoidance behaviour, it’s not even exclusive to humans.

It’s because in the vast majority of cases, incest follows grooming or a disturbed power dynamic, meaning there’s no consent. However, proving that can be hard, meaning those abusive relationships are allowed to continue.

By outlawing incest, you harm very, very few people who are in a healthy incestuous relationship, but are able to much more easily crack down on abusive relationships between family members, since proving incest is generally quite easy in comparison.

I guess the justification can be seen as similar to why we outlaw speeding: what you want is outlaw dangerous driving since that’s a risk to others on the road, but that can be hard to prove/subjective. Instead, we ban speeding (and other stuff), which are very strong indicators of dangerous driving, directly. Easier to prove, targets very few who could “break” that law “safely”, actively makes the road safer for everyone.

University of Birmingham disagrees: https://academic.oup.com/ojls/article/45/2/329/8078322?login=false they say that it should be a legal defence.

Yeah that’s one of the ones I remember as well.

IIRC it was a lack of transparency regarding funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation, some videos with very dubious science behind them presented as fact, and I believe one case of essentially plagiarism from another creator (there was at least some dispute).

They did since come out and apologized for some of it but the whole drama did sour the channel for some people.