Explain how they make money buying property?

Landlords inflate prices of property.

Most politicians in the West don’t actually care about humanitarian issues in China. That has almost nothing to do with why we don’t play nice.

The liver is one of the most complex organs in the human body. It is responsible for a wide spectrum of toxin breakdown and chemical synthesis. The heart only needs to pump blood, though it’s uptime is very impressive. If your liver stops working you won’t die immediately but if your heart stops working your body will be starved of oxygen in mere minutes. Ultimately though what the heart does is mechanical and simple.

Hair tie. I always have 1, or 2, or 3 in my pocket.

Something like Microsoft Word or Paint is not generative.

It is standard for publishers to make indemnity agreements with creatives who produce for them, because like I said, it’s kinda difficult to prove plagiarism in the negative so a publisher doesn’t want to take the risk of distributing works where originality cannot be verified.

I’m not arguing that we should change any laws, just that people should not use these tools for commercial purposes if the producers of these tools will not take liability, because if they refuse to do so their tools are very risky to use.

I don’t see how my position affects the general public not using these tools, it’s purely about the relationship between creatives and publishers using AI tools and what they should expect and demand.

Those analogies don’t make any sense.

Anyway, as a publisher, if I cannot get OpenAI/ChatGPT to sign an indemnity agreement where they are at fault for plagiarism then their tool is effectively useless because it is really hard to determine something in not plagiarism. That makes ChatGPT pretty sus to use for creatives. So who is going to pay for it?

What vegan thinks you can turn a cat vegan? That’s like thinking you can turn a cat hegelian or something.

While I agree that using copyrighted material to train your model is not theft, text that model produces can very much be plagiarism and OpenAI should be on the hook when it occurs.

It’s not hypocritical to care about some parts of copyright and not others. For example most people in the foss crowd don’t really care about using copyright to monetarily leverage being the sole distributor of a work but they do care about attribution.

You’re asking the wrong question.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_the_United_States

That’s not important. I was illustrating that clearly if nobody ate chicken nobody would harvest chickens for food. Unless you think that the same amount of chickens will be harvested until the very last human gives up chicken then you have to acknowledge that the individual consumer does make a difference.

If you don’t eat chicken nobody is going to swoop in and eat all the chicken you don’t eat. However if a farmer or farming corporation decides to stop harvesting chickens then it’s almost certain some entity will swoop in to replace them in the market. So acting like the consumer here is not one of the if not the most important part in this causal chain is just naive.

That is pretty irrelevant. You purchasing the product signals a certain demand for it, that demand will help determine how much product is requested in the future, there is a cascading effect all the way up the supply chain. Sure an additional chicken might not be bred just because you purchased a chicken, it’s way more abstract than that. Maybe if a hundred more chickens are bought then a hundred more chickens will be bred as replacements plus extra to account for growth and failed product (dead or sick chickens). And if you were one of the hundred people who purchased a chicken you can be seen as one hundredth responsible for at least a hundred chickens which is the same as being responsible for the 1+ chicken. Do you think if nobody purchased chickens that they would just keep stocking the shelves?

Most people I’ve talked to, which is mostly nonvegans, think it is unethical to let cats outside because they will kill wild animals. This is a more hypocritical stance than the reverse (a vegan who lets their cat outside) if you understand veganism.

You’re also throwing around the word forced. People force choices on their pets, children, and even fellow adults all the time, but there are different levels of force. Putting down food for a cat that gladly eats it is a far cry away from shoving something down their throat or leaving it out until they have no choice but to eat it. I’d argue that it’s often very appropriate to make food choices for a cat you live with, if a cat begs for some lasagna or a donut you probably shouldn’t give it to them.

Edit: Also when people talk about forcing cats onto a vegan diet you have to realize the alternative is forcing livestock to suffer serious trauma for their entire life and then die. It’s not hard to see that one of these is a more serious abuse of our power over other animals.

Humans are good at pulling nutrients from all sorts of sources but those sources have to actually contain the nutrients in the first place, we don’t have some magic ability to just eat one thing with no supplementation and get all our nutrients.

Dogs are omnivores.

Supplements are already in the livestock (that we feed the cats) feed and animal based cat food. Yes it’s harder to get most cats to take a pill than a human adult, but that really isn’t necessary it can just be put in the food itself, and it is.

Do you have a problem with the word chud? Because you sure sound like one.

Then shouldn’t it either be changed to “of any cause” or terminate after “dying”.

Yes, the foods that are high in omega 3s and 6s like fish, nuts, and seeds tend to be low in saturated fat and high in unsaturated fat compositionally. So it is not necessary to consume a lot of saturated fat in our diets, we should avoid coconut oil, palm oil, butter, and lard wherever possible.

Eating refined sugar is bad for you, we should avoid things like sugary beverages for example. But this does not mean that whole fruit is bad for us, and definitely doesn’t mean that whole veg and grain is bad for us. The fiber in fruit blunts the effects of the fructose, interestingly fiber also blunts the effects of saturated fat from whole coconuts.

People love telling this mythology about how the low fat guidelines made us sick, but it’s pretty much bunk. People didn’t follow the guidelines for the most part as macro ratios have hardly varied over time in the US. Corporations also leveraged the idea to sell junk foods as healthier alternatives by lowering the fat content, but keeping or even raising the amount of refined carbohydrates.

Nobody in this conversation is saying sugar is good for you. I was just pushing back against the OP of this chain who said that meat is of no concern to diabetics, and said sugar and other carbohydrates are the main culprit. Other carbohydrates would even include fiber which would be quite beneficial to diabetics. But also from the studies I’ve seen I’d be more worried about someone who puts a spoonful of coconut oil or butter in their coffee than someone who puts a spoonful or two of sugar, and not just because of diabetes but cardiovascular disease as well.

It’s funny to me that people are upvoting your misinformation because they can’t be bothered to look something up themselves when it only takes a second, bullshit dietary science spreads so easily on the Internet.

Those are not saturated fats, and omega 9 and not all omega 3s and 6s are essential fats. Specifically alpha linolenic and linoleic acid are essential.

Edit:
In case it comes up later I do not want it to look like I’m shifting arguments so I’ll add this. Even if it were essential, something being essential does not mean it is harmless at any quantity, and something being unessential does not mean it is dangerous. I also did not say raw dogging glucose was good for you, it definitely isn’t. I said saturated fat was worse than refined sugar, so the broad category of “carbohydrates” is definitely not some boogeyman.