There's probably already terabytes and terabytes of disney porn out there. It's not clear to me why this would make much of a difference on that front.
471 karma · joined November 25, 2025
i know what the url for wikipedia is, thanks.
if you wouldn't link/cite it in an email to a work peer, boss, vendor, etc. then dont cite it on an informal message board.
Was it a bad game? Or jankey? What parts of Helldivers are "making sense" now?
It does not, no. You cannot be "groomed" into being attracted to a different sex.
I forget the exact statistic, but CEOs are disproportionately sociopaths (compared to the whole population).
So, no story required because there's no guilt felt.
This isn't how being queer works!
Whatever your conclusion is, it’s sort of beside the point I was making, which is that the many of the arguments about mandated seatbelts (or smoking, alcohol) are meaningfully different than the arguments being made today about age verification for websites.
>“So if I'm for these laws, consider that a sign of how bad these sites have become, not how uninformed I am.”
This is kind of reinforcing what I said in my first comment. Most, if not all, of the arguments against these types of laws aren’t based on the premise that these sites aren’t bad. I haven’t seen anyone saying that TikTok is a societal good. Almost everyone agrees there.
I’m saying that the main arguments are different. I am suggesting that there are more differences between the seatbelt debate and the age-verification-for-websites debate than there are similarities. Which is why I thought your comment of “eerily similar” was off-base.
I cannot possibly muster up enough energy to care about this anywhere near as much as you do.
Good luck, fellow North American.
I have literally 0 reason to answer this, it has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation, but to placate whatever weird obsession you have, yes. I was born in Michigan.
>Why would you say north america unless you have ties to canada.
Why do you care? Is North America offensive now or something?
I said "North America" because, for the purposes of this specific conversation, it doesn't matter at all. Except to you, apparently. For some unknown reason.
I try not to be super US-centric on international forums. First time someone's ever started questioning me about it, though.
If you think the arguments are eerily similar, I feel like you haven't really been listening to the arguments against these types of age-verification-for-websites laws.
I mean, there's some similarities, of course. But I think there are some very stark differences.
But North America, for the curious.
The shitty part is that when the parents really do believe something is "for the kids", it becomes that much easier to push through laws that have awful side effects (intentional ones or not). Which is why "for the kids" is so common, of course.
It's half of the "teens" someone experiences before hitting the age of majority. I think it's fine to say "teen" in the title.
I've heard people say the same thing ("LLMs don't need to be as good as an expert to be useful, they just need to be better than your best available expert"), and I also know that some people assume that LLMs are, by default, better than nothing. Hence my comment.
Well, there's at least a few reasons this is different than the current situation.
1) It's expensive to make a TV show, it's free to do a fortnite dance or eat a tide pod and post it to several websites. The amount of low-effort, low-quality, probably-harmful content on TikTok or whatever is exponentially more than low-effort, low-quality, probably-harmful TV shows/ads.
2) The availability is on completely different scales. TVs are (basically) fixed in a specific place. Phones are, for most people, within arms reach 24/7.
3) What can be shown on TV is significantly more regulated in most parts of the world, and control mechanisms by governments are more robust (pull a broadcast license, etc.). It's harder to take a website (or TikTok, whatever) offline than it is to pull a harmful show/advert off of HGTV or whatever your favorite channel is.
4) TV is not specifically tailored to the viewer to produce the most amount of happy chemical.
This mostly makes sense.
The problem is that people will take what you've said to mean "If I have no access to a therapist, at least I can access an LLM", with a default assumption that something is better than nothing. But this quickly breaks down when the sycophantic LLM encourages you to commit suicide, or reinforces your emerging psychosis, etc. Speaking to nobody is better than speaking to something that is actively harmful.
It's also less pressure, a more comfortable environment (home vs. stranger's office), no commitments to a next session, and less embarrassing (sharing your personal issues to a computer via text is less anxiety-inducing than saying them to a person's face).
With that all said, I'm strongly opposed to people using LLMs as therapists.
>The best speakers really do just never bother with it in the first place.
This person has a preference which is not universal despite them stating it like a universal truth. I have also watched hundreds of presentations (and presented dozens), so I'm at least as equally qualified to say:
A fade between slides, fading-in bullet points or a picture on a slide as they become relevant, underlining/bolding/changing the color of a word to draw emphasis to it after the fact, etc. All of these can be perfectly fine. In fact, I think these small details can turn an okay slide deck into a well polished one.
>[...] had to wait fifteen seconds or so for his dumb, contentless transitions to play out, each slide he advanced, [...]
But yes, don't make your transitions 15 seconds. And if you're going backwards or skipping ahead, you can skip animations. You don't need to let it play out.
Also important to keep in mind that a good (or bad) slide deck alone does not make a good (or bad) presentation. The speaker and their knowledge + passion for the topic is what is important. A good slide deck is just a bonus.
>"Blacklisted foreign companies persist in app stores [...]"
>"Watchdog finds firms and organizations in Apple and Google stores [...]"
>"[...] remained available in app stores maintained by Apple and Google [...]"
Wonder why the submitter of this article titled it "Apple Faces Scrutiny [...]"...?
(Kind of funny that 7777777phil, the submitter, was just complaining about a clickbait title yesterday! And then they submit this with an editorialized title.)
Is this just a vibe thing or has anyone actually done some statistics on this?
Sounds like it's something you assume is true solely based on the fact that you personally feel like LLMs are good at medical advice.
Genius call.
I didn't write any other comment here :)
But, anyways:
>It has not been my experience that individual owner landlords have been better than institutional owners!
My experience has been different than yours, in that case!
>The problem is you're all dumb and getting dumber.
But yeah, you're the only smart person here. Clap clap.