I imagine you would sign a different tune if Biden admin hypothetically forced your employer via federal funding to make you say "Trans Rights!", for plurality of thought of course.
Your logical fallacy is false equivalence. Nobody is asking for compelled speech here.
And yes, after being forced to start business meetings with a brief mention of whether anyone is transgender for the last few years, nearly everyone hates that. That’s why democrat approval is so low.
It's implicit, you just don't want to see it. It's literally political commissars.
> And yes, after being forced to start business meetings with a brief mention of whether anyone is transgender for the last few years, nearly everyone hates that.
What are you talking about? I never seen that or do you mean that people present themselves in a business meeting? Is this compelled speech to you? Hearing "Hi my name is Mark, call me he" is such a earth shattering trauma that you'll allow party officials in your universities?
So if I tell you to call me by my foreign middle name I'm forcing you to know I'm not white? Will you shit and cry if a woman talks about her wife during a coffee break?
The obvious fact is that what makes you mad is not the mention, it's the presence. Now you will say something of the lines "you are slandering me without evidence" because in bizarro land one cannot read beyond the strictly literal.
It's the same (intentional) blindness that can read this:
> [...] the University shall commission an external party, which shall satisfy the federal government as to its competence and good faith, to audit the student body, faculty, staff, and leadership for viewpoint diversity, such that each department, field, or teaching unit must be individually viewpoint diverse. This audit shall begin no later than the summer of 2025 and shall proceed
on a department-by-department, field-by-field, or teaching unit-by-teaching-unit basis as appropriate. [...]
> [...] Every department or field found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by hiring a critical mass of new faculty within that department or field who will provide viewpoint diversity; every teaching unit found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by admitting a critical mass of students who will provide viewpoint diversity. If the review finds that the existing faculty in the relevant department or field are not capable of hiring for viewpoint diversity, or that the relevant teaching unit is not capable of admitting a critical mass of students with diverse viewpoints, hiring or admissions within that department, field, or teaching unit shall be transferred to the closest cognate department, field, or teaching unit that is capable of achieving viewpoint diversity. [...]
And not get that "viewpoint diversity" is literally whatever the federal government wants. You don't succumb in some lite-Maoist struggle session? Fired. Your department grows a spine? Fired and subsumed to an already captured department. Posted anti-Trump sentiment in social media? Sorry, we reached the quota for liberals.
If I did find/replaced all the indications that this is a Trump initiative and gave you this during the Biden presidency you would be foaming at the mouth. Be honest with yourself.
Here's how you determine who brings more value to society: If they were to just stop coming to work tomorrow, would society keep going?
If every ticktocker quit tomorrow, would society still function? Yes. Things would go on like nothing ever happened.
If every surgeon quit tomorrow, would society still function? No, people would die, they would become timid and afraid of being hurt, because minor injuries would be fatal and life changing. Not only that, we would lose centuries worth of knowledge and be forced to learn it all from scratch again from books instead of trained surgeons.
The danger in your logic is it leads to thinking like this: "ticktockers provide more value than surgeons because they can scale their reach, therefore in order to maximize total value to society, we can maximize the number of ticktickers and we don't have to worry about surgeons. We can just offset the lost value by the value brought by all the ticktockers."
That's an obvious bad idea and straw man, but people really try to go down that slippery slope in non-obvious cases. The realm of education comes to mind. "MOOCs are more valuable than universities because they have more reach, therefore in the future we will close down universities and only have MOOCs" is something I've heard seriously proposed before.
You have the delusion that true value is the same as a fungible one dimensional number, that externalities (negative or positive) don't exist, we have perfect information and local minima aren't real.
The original example is that certain economic activities are force multipliers, the guy who actually does a good job in servicing the metro in my city (we avoid 10 minutes of delay) has more impact than most local CEO day to day. A good supply of bus drivers make certain services possible, which in turn boost productivity.
The social influencer entertains like shitty cocaine, we don't have a lack of inane shit, their absurd payout exists because ZIRP happened. Bad entertainment has costs beyond the directly measured by dollars.
Getting everybody addicted to nicotine is profitable but bad, correct?
A hypothetical world were we "stagnated" on MySpace equivalents could've existed and surely the generated value would be higher.
if you think the metro guy/girl provides more value then he/she should be paid more. tough luck because its not the market that decides his wage unfortunately.
Sure, a Marxist might think IP is absurd on ideological grounds, but a Social Democrat? Maybe? A socially conscious neoliberal? They love IP. Someone may also hate Mickey Mouse's copyright extension and at the same time hate GenAI!
This type of vague posting is very popular in HN.
> X thing was originally universally leftist (it wasn't), now it's right wing only (it isn't), something something the real counterculture or grey tribe.
Copyright as a concept is prescriptive not descriptive. It doesn't appear from an observation of the laws of reality, it's law to produce certain outcomes, so what copyright applies to is a question of what will the legislative bodies decide to do.
It's entirely valid to consider the act of training via ML a right granted by the creator like reproduction or performing, simply on the basis of protecting human art. The comparison with human learning can be made irrelevant (and IMO it's not the same fundamentally).
This is currently a discussion about plagiarism (the ethics) and what the outcomes are from unrestricted GenAI. How copyright applies to GenAI is a question for later, informed by the discussion by society at large (and lobbyists).
JUNAEB in Chile is pretty much SNAP for college students. Originally you could buy beer or pretty much anything in the supermarket, it got limited strictly to food and then items with two or less warning labels [0].
A big difference is intention, in the US the focus is "anti-sin" and avoiding joy for undesirables. Many protein bars or "natural" juices are just morally aesthetic candy and soda. The labeling in Chile is data driven* (i.e, It's pretty much an efficient way to read the nutrition info, it killed vitamin water) so the objective is closer to public health.
I would also think that straight cash is preferable, the limitations are fine for complementary benefits of college students, not for actual families. Diapers and lentils are a better use of government money. Anyways if people want to buy drugs, converting food items to cash is simple.
Irrelevant, his thoughts in the matter or him being a shithead don't make the unintended use of a smart contract illegal or not. This is just usual case of Wilhoit’s Law by shitcoin peddlers.
> There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
They are outside of regulatory scrutiny but god-forbid someone uses the same excuses to take their funny money.
