There is context and nuance to everything. If you think this situation is ALWAYS creepy then I’m afraid you are objectively incorrect.
Children walk up to each other on a playground and butt in and make friends happily. Why do you want us all to be boring robots that never interface?
In what world is it creepy to overhear somebody saying something in a public place? Have you ever been in a social situation before?
now do a count per years of release and calculate how many jk rowling would sell if her books were out for the same amount of time?
or is the bible the greatest piece of fiction ever?
does shitting on the floor exist as a major plot point in the series? No?
you are letting your hate for a person obscure the objectivity behind the comments you are replying to.
Not really. If you were discussing with somebody about some terminal illness you were raising money for and somebody approached and said: “Sorry, but I overheard what you said and I’d love to donate, if that’s okay” that would not be creepy in the slightest.
There is a difference between ‘overhearing’ and ‘purposefully spying’
This is definitely one of those ‘creepy if ugly’ moments. If he was a handsome guy, it would be romantic and has almost definitely happened in a million Hallmark movies.
The UK is leading the western world in renewables in many ways, yet our bills are some of the most expensive.
How is it even possible to afford $800 for insulin? It boggles the mind
Veganism is ethical. Vegans can be stupid the same way carnivores can be. This reductive belief system may work in a world without critical thinking but I find your comment just as stupid as the one in this post.
I wasn’t familiar with that. When I wanted to see if I could buy ethical cheese I found one farm which reared calves with mothers, and read that although everything else they do seemed to be ethical, they did sell their male calves to be used for veal. That may have been incorrect and if it was, I was unaware.
The cheese was also extremely expensive too, like 10x the price of normal cheese.
Unfortunately - and this is the problem - it is incredibly inefficient to raise animals properly. Almost any ‘humane’ animal products that you can think of have very harmful practices embedded in them.
Firstly - the animals having the best possible life right to the moment of death would still allow things like lamb. Surely giving a baby the best possible life before killing it young is still barbaric?
Secondly - secondary animal products would still require harmful practices. For a dairy cow to produce milk she has to be pregnant / have a baby. Some farms produce ‘humane’ dairy which involves allowing the mother and calf to live together, but then it also requires them to sell the male calves to be killed for veal because… what else would a male calf be for?
And finally, onto the point of inefficiency. Do you have any idea how many chickens are killed every single day to supply our food system? You probably do, but you may be unaware of what that means - the Earth does not have enough land possible to raise these chickens, it is physically impossible and that is just one farm animal.
So the future of a humane world for animals either involves quality synthetic meat, or everybody is suddenly happy to go vegan, or more likely; everybody remains carnivorous and we continue to torture animals.
The em dash used in MS word is different to the one used by ChatGPT as far as I can tell, it looks more like the en dash used by GPT.
The problem is it’s incredible rare to find others that are willing to change their minds in return, so every discussion either involves you changing your mind, or the other person getting agitated.
A discussion in good faith means treating the person you are speaking to with respect. It means not having ulterior motives. If you are having the discussion with the explicit purpose of changing their minds or, in your words, “alarming them to take action” then that is by default a bad faith discussion.
If you want to discuss with a pro-AI person in good faith, you HAVE to be open to changing your own mind. That is the whole point of a good faith discussion - but rather, you already believe you are correct, and are wanting to enter these discussions with objective ammunition to defeat somebody.
How do you actually discuss in good faith? You ask for their opinions and are open to them, then you share your own in a respectful manner. You aren’t trying to ‘win’ you are just trying to understand and in turn, help others to understand your own POV.
“This is how conspiracy theorists actually think”
I’m not sure why this generalisation was required? Many ‘conspiracy theories’ have been proven to be true, and not ALL theorists believe ALL of the theories. It’s easy to discredit somebody when you label them something and then say that those that are labelled are idiots.
edit- downvoting something without replying to it is how you get an echo chamber
With this perspective, is death really a ‘meaning’ to life, or is it rather a ‘fuel’ for more life?
If it’s the latter, then that implies there is another meaning to life. There is a circle which keeps the wheel of life spinning - but where is the wheel going, and why?
The ultimate death of everything, perhaps, in which case I suppose you are correct.
The meaning of life (to you) could be to: “Just be here because here is where we happen to be.”
It’s not that deep, really. Some people want to have an impact, others just want to chill. I’m just curious what people’s first response is to that question and so far I have seen lots of interesting comments.
So, none of the people mentioned are trans women? Why exactly are you making these comments?
It’s just obvious from your way of speaking that this is a rewriting of history, yes you have mentioned some poor world building she has done outside of her literature, that is almost entirely irrelevant to the books she has written.
Calling her works ‘mediocre’ is once again, objectively incorrect and in my opinion (this is an assumption) is fuelled by your own personal feelings towards her.