I never did. I got a learners permit at 16 or so, practiced with my parents for a number of years and renewed the learning permit at least once without testing for a full license, but eventually stopped and let it expire.

I have pretty bad anxiety issues, which driving has proven one of the triggers for, and unlike everything else that triggers it, for driving it got worse with exposure instead of better. I actually wasn’t even that nervous at first, but every time I’d make a mistake, or witness someone else make one, it’d come to mind every time I’d practice driving, because I didn’t want to accidentally kill someone from a lapse in judgment, and eventually every little thing built up so much that one day, my father handed me the keys and asked me to try taking us to a store, and I had a full-on fight-or-flight panic response just sitting in the drivers seat. At that point I finally deicided that it just wasn’t responsible of me to be on the road if after several years I still couldn’t even think straight while driving, and Ive never done it since, and ended up moving states a couple years in order to live somewhere that going with out a car is at least somewhat viable.

To be honest, Ive actually been happier since, its a huge expense that I don’t have, and Ivr found I can get a decent amount of exercise without having to go an intentionally make myself do it, just from walking a lot. But of course, it’s only comfortable in the kind of dense urban area with decent (by US standards) public transit that in the US seems to exist only in a handful of places, the cost of living for which eat a lot of the savings from not having a car in the first place.

In a pure debate sense, this would be true, even an unpopular or suspicious person is still capable of making a valid point. It should be considered, however, that internet arguments are not formal debates. They can at times use the form and language of them, but most people are not skilled in that kind of formalized arguing, and most people are not arguing in an actual attempt to use the debate to identify stronger vs inconsistent positions (rather than just trying to push people towards ones own ideas or to put down ideas one finds reprehensible).

Now, I dont personally tend to find much point in looking through profiles, it takes too much time for little benefit in my view, but it can sometimes tell you if an account is not worth the time and emotional investment to interact with, or if it has signs that it might not be. The nature of social media is such that there are always far more user’s trying to get your attention, than you have attention to spare. As such, if theres even a notable red-flag that an account isnt worth the time and potential frustration to engage with, it can make pragmatic sense to move on (depending on how much one is willing to put up with, I guess).

From that perspective, telling other people what it was that seemed like a red flag to you lets them consider if that thing makes that account worth their time or not, without them having to find it too, and therefore potentially does those other people a favor. That sounds a bit harsh (at least to me) because plenty of things others might consider suspect, like a new account, cant always be helped (everyone starts off new after all), and being ignored, or having other people call out that thing as a reason they might want to ignore you, is frustrating, but that’s just the nature of giving massive numbers of people the ability to talk to everyone else; most people wont want or have the time to listen to you, and you’re not entitled to their time, however unfair their reason for dismissing you might be.

It seems to me there are two scenarios: you’re burying a body legally somehow (the question never specifies a human body, so it could be a dead pet, and even if it is human, maybe that person had specific wishes and you’ve done whatever paperwork that might take, idk) in which case the answer is surely yes. Or, you’re doing it illegally, presumably to dispose of the body, in which case I have to question why you’d bury it somewhere that, if found, will immediately implicate you as a suspect.

I mean, if were talking about efficiency tools for artists to use rather than straight up automatically generating the assets (not sure what those tools would be at the moment, but I’ve not been following what the AI industry actually releases for awhile because it’s always seemed a bit useless), then the result should be an increase in the output of those artists rather than replacing them with statistical amalgam.

The nature of deep dish pizza aside, doesn’t cheeseless pizza predate the kind with cheese anyway?

While I suspect a lot of lemmy would say yes just by virtue of having both socialist politics and an anti-AI stance, strictly speaking I don’t think AI inheritly has anything to do one way or the other with socialism (though the way and by whom it is owned probably would be different), so really that would depend more on how the culture of a given country treated that tech than it’s economic system.

not these days, I did once, but nowadays I have a lizard because they’re a bit more interactive for a scaly animal.

Wasnt really planning to draw tonight, but you know what, sure, Ill try something, Ive been needing something to distract me from my anxiety problems today anyway.

Isnt this kind of thing literally how tankies got that name in the first place?

I would assume that, since humans sometimes pretend to not be human, that would simply be a subset of human behavior, and so what would make the comment make the most sense wouldn’t be “looking for behavior atypical for humans”, but rather " looking for behavior that humans arent able to engage in no matter how hard they try". What that would even be in a text based system though, I’m not sure. Typing impossibly fast maybe?

I thought that fire inheritly pushes things, and that all you needed to do to make a rocket, was to take a sizable flame, like a campfire or something, flip it upside down so that the flame pointed down instead of up somehow, and attach it to the bottom of something.

If history is any indication, what that would do is make the country forget about how the conflict started and demand that nukes (or some equivalent strike) be fired in retaliation.

Maybe we’re reading things differently, but I thought their sign implied that fairly strongly, just that they wanted to tack “Trump is a criminal” onto that without drastically increasing the wording.

Saying “Trump did X and broke the law doing it” is not the same thing as saying “This would be fine if Trump had done it through legal channels”.

I just think that dying is unethical in general and represents a maximal state of suffering (well, more a minimum of non-suffering, since you have no capacity to experience anything when you dont exist anymore, not maximal suffering in the “hell” sense. I know many or most people would disagree with me on that point, but its not something I feel like spelling out my reasons for at the moment.) I also do not believe in the concept of deserved suffering (that is to say, in my view suffering as punishment only has value in its capacity to rewire a person’s future behavior, and that once you have achieved that so as to cause them to live without continuing whatever harms have led to the punishment, anything more is wrong, no matter what they’ve done, even if they were literally the most heinous person of all time). If you’re actually in a position to execute them, then youre in a position to take their money and power too, pointing out that they rarely face justice isnt actually relevant to this, because if your legal system is too corrupted to hand out a jail sentence and make it stick, its also going to be too corrupted to hand out a death sentence and go through with it. These people arent wealthy because they’re inherently good at making money, they’re wealthy because wealth begets wealth and they either started with some or lucked out somewhere or have relations that have it, so if you both take their wealth and the wealth of their friends and relatives, how are they going to get it back?

Depends on how literally you mean it, in general, those most likely to say it wont think that humans are literally designed not to die and only do so because someone made a mistake, but more that humans might be redesigned or modified not to (or at least not from biological aging). Not a hard to find sentiment if you hang out in spaces with transhumanists, but I find the ones that overlap with AI bros, that tend to have an attitude like “this will totally happen in my lifetime and with no effort because the AI singularity is going to come and give us everything in a few years” impossible to talk to, because all too often they will cite even the tiniest listed improvement in any AI system as proof that literally everything possible or impossible is about to happen and then insist you arent paying attention when you give them skeptcism.

Emotions aren’t entirely rational with a clearly thought out process to justify why one should feel them. In any case, its common enough for people to assign the general actions of people within a group to the group as a whole (which isnt really fair or a reflection of reality, but can be pragmatic at times and requires less thought and information than judging on an individual basis, so it makes sense that people’s brains are wired up to do it even if its not always desirable). This can get extended to the groups one is a part of oneself, to include those whose membership one did not choose. And the US at the moment has even worse than typical leadership, has a great deal of power for that leadership to abuse, still has free enough media for people within it to stand a good chance of knowing about at least some of it, and if youre here on lemmy youre probably running into people with a somewhat higher than normal awareness of a lot of the historical abuses previous Americans have perpetrated just because it leans left and anti-establishment and those things get talked about a lot in such spaces.

You misunderstand, I am not saying “make sure he spends it responsibly”. Nobody has has “made” him do this at all, and I didn’t advocate for a policy of doing so. What I’m saying is that I don’t think this particular use is worthy of condemnation the way his other actions are, because in the long run I think that this specific thing will end up benefiting people other than him no matter if he intends for that to happen or not (even if the American healthcare system prevents access, which I’m not confident it will do completely, not every country has that system, and it’s statistically improbable that the US will have it forever, and research results are both durable and cross borders). That sentiment isn’t saying that it excuses his wealth, just that I think people are seeing only the negatives in this merely because of the association with Altman’s name and ignoring the potential benefits out of cynicism. The concept is just as valid with him funding it as it would be had he been condemning it instead.

The response to something beneficial being only available to the rich shouldn’t be to avoid developing that thing, it should be to make it available to everyone. The failures of the US healthcare and economic systems don’t suddenly make developing new medical techniques a bad thing. Human augmentation is another issue from curing genetic disease, though I’d personally argue that wouldn’t be a bad cause either, with the same caveat about it availability. It at least has more potential to improve somebody’s life somewhere down the line than just buying a yacht with his ill gotten gains or some other useless rich person toy would.

I’m not sure I get the universal negativity to this. Like sure, Altman sucks as a person, and an individual having enough money to significantly bankroll research like this is a sign of an economic failure, but surely curing or preventing genetic disease is just about the most uncontroversial use human genetic modification could have?