True. Back when I rented it was a good situation because my rent was dirt cheap and I was able to save money. Seems those days are long gone with rentals sometimes being double or triple what a mortgage payment would be.

Renting isn’t the greatest decision, either. You’re throwing money at a landlord and gaining zero equity. People often do it because it’s that or homelessness. These systems are in place to take advantage of people who aren’t the best decision makers. Just because they can be taken advantage of… should they be? Or should we be better than this and revamp how we house people so that it isn’t a massive scam with the opportunity for extra side scams like we see here?

If the landlord wasn’t a massive dick, they both could have benefited from this situation. She’d have the renovated bathroom she wanted, and the landlord knew his property was being taken care of without even needing to lift a finger. Instead he got greedy, and rather than blame the greedy jerk people want to jump on the “stupid” victim. Except it’s not her fault her landlord was a prick.

I’m not arguing this point. Even though I disagree with how she chose to spend her money, I can still acknowledge that it’s not her fault the landlord took advantage of her and kicked her out to charge higher rent to the next person.

Except shaming obesity doesn’t solve that problem, either. You’re kind of proving my point here without even realizing it.

Your advice isn’t helpful for people who don’t have the means to own their own home. Being trusting or naive isn’t something that should be shamed. There’s a way to educate people with kindness and compassion. People aren’t born knowing how to best handle the legal end of a renovation. But go on and call her stupid some more, that’ll help the onlookers. You and I and everyone in this comments section will be smart and secure with the claws we have dug into the insides of the pretty housing bubble. Perhaps if we bicker even more, the problem will disappear completely.

A proper comparison here would be more like a leased vehicle than a rental car. It’s not the “stupidest thing ever” for this tenant to believe she would be living there for 1 or more years and wouldn’t suddenly be evicted. Your exaggeration only benefits predators, and your pity is hardly a reward to anyone.

Everyone is so busy insulting the tenant doing the upgrades when it’s the landlord who behaved badly. If all we do is collectively blame victims when they get taken advantage of, society will crumble. This woman wasn’t stupid, she just didn’t have her guard up in preparation for the massive asshole who had power over her. There’s a difference.

When you are trusting, you’re called stupid. When you trust no one, you’re called unreasonably cynical. They’re two sides of the same victim blaming coin. Start blaming the actual problem: predators.

Your assessment seems spot on to me. I’m connecting some projected dots to late stage capitalism. Perhaps the AIs will trickle down and such if we hold off on regulations.

Of course it’s possible for the government to impose regulations without sticking their face in and motorboating the AI’s contents. Google, Microsoft et al. would love to prevent this from happening because they actually do have their faces in there.

This is such an important distinction. Current AI is incapable of wanting to cause any of that harm, yet it’s already happening. The danger won’t be skynet, it will be and always has been human greed and ignorance.

Hmm, this makes me think of the tradition on certain parts of the internet where people publicly announce the name and crime of this convicted rapist. They’ll explain where he’s currently living, the name he’s trying to go by, and bars he was seen at. This activity seems to stem from the outrage at the excessive leniency he was shown by the judge, although could also be protecting other potential victims.

I wonder if this kind of vigilante doxxing would fall under the scope of such a law, especially when his name is already in so many publications.

First the Streisand effect led to her home. Now it leads to her entire discography. Poor Barbara Streisand.

Why would you assume it’s an emergent property and thus should be dismissed as not being a force of nature? I’m making fewer assumptions than you are by wanting to list it alongside the other forces until we can determine if it is emergent or not, and the implications of such emergence. It’s kind of a big deal that we can sit here and ponder the forces of nature with some degree of control over our little sack of atoms.

It’s safe to say that this list is going to change over time and represents a current snapshot of humanity’s limited understanding. Under the current snapshot of human understanding, leaving it off of the list seems to me to indicate an ironic bias on the behalf of researchers who must use the very force in question to do anything. By necessity, it is the overarching phenomenon surrounding all other forces since the only place we can definitively know these forces even exist is within our own mind. To say anything more is to make assumptions.

While I agree that a certain level of assumptions are necessary if we’re going to get anywhere, I’m also acutely aware that they’re still assumptions and that assumptions are not scientific. If we’re going to be scientific about this, we need to make as few assumptions as possible.

Yeah, I took a look at the code they used in the article that might help someone generate functional attacks. A rando experimenting without permission would likely get banned from the service.

Forces of Nature

1. electromagnetism
2. strong nuclear force
3. weak nuclear force
4. gravity
   5?. whatever the hell might be acting on the muons in this article

Quick, everyone ignore 0 because it’s “too hard”, even though it’s the only reason we can study 1-5: consciousness

I just tried this on ChatGPT, it doesn’t work.

I did. He assured me in more professional terms that they don’t give a shit. I do a lot of business with them and have been a client in good standing since I became an adult. They apparently have nothing set up to retain customers who leave over this, which would indicate that hasn’t been an issue for them. Or they might be banking on me not following through, but that just means they don’t know me very well. When it comes time for me to make those changes to my policy, I’m gone.

Privacy has been beaten to a bloody pulp, but the fight doesn’t need to be called yet. Don’t give up, keep telling everyone you can. I know things are looking low right now, but every person you reach matters.

In the case of Zoom, an approach that could actually work is having every step of the solution already completed if you’ve got an employer trying to push Zoom on employees. Make sure you can clearly state here’s the problem, here’s why it’s dangerous for the company, here’s a great alternative, here’s why it’s safest for the company, and here’s how you install it. Reach out to the IT dept if you’re not the IT dept to get them on board. If the advice is coming from multiple employees, that will help your case.

Imagine getting caught and having your claim denied or being sued for insurance fraud. I’m happy to use ublock origin, but what you’re describing is playing with fire. We need to make sure it never gets to this point in the first place by making it illegal for insurance companies to do this.

Something needs to happen to clue in the average person about why this is such a problem. I don’t know what that something is though. Continued breaches of privacy? The government and police continuing to make obvious use of the data they can easily buy from any of these companies? What is it going to take for people to care and for laws to be made to prevent more of this going forward?

I was talking to my insurance company the other day and they warned me that if I make any changes to my policy they’ll drastically jack up my rate because of the changes in the economy. But I can bring it down a bit if I install their tracking software on my phone that can interface with my vehicle and send all of my driving data to them. It would tell them everywhere I ever go whenever I drive, my exact speed at any moment, braking habits, etc. Does anyone ever say yes to this? Do people realize that they could sift through everything you’ve ever done effortlessly with AI to find that one time in your life you came to a rolling stop at a deserted stop sign and claim you’re a dangerous driver who doesn’t follow the rules of the road in order to deny your claim?

Is there a chance in hell that one day this won’t be a requirement just to have vehicle insurance? Why isn’t everyone up in arms about their data being harvested and sold to the highest bidder? Why are there not laws being made against this kind of undemocratic, authoritarian control over people? I am so disappointed in my fellow man, both the ones guilty of the harvesting and everyone who couldn’t be bothered to complain and put a stop to this.

Don’t give France any ideas.