I’m not sure if this is entirely relevant, but depending on your local climate it could be related to the smell known as petrichor that you will often get when it rains/is about to rain on soil, which could be affected by the moisture in your local area that accumulated overnight then evaporating more quickly as the sun rises.

1. Trans people who don’t pass will also feel awkward walking in there, and many of them don’t. Often times, you’ll primarily just see people who pass going into the restroom matching their gender. Just the fact they identify as the gender doesn’t often mean even they are comfortable going in there, so it’s not like anyone presenting as masculine going into the women’s restroom is even a common occurrence in places where trans people are accepted
2. Anyone who would be willing to visually change themselves to pass as the opposite gender doesn’t need “being trans” as a concept to do so, and could be just as willing to engage in that regardless.
3. Gay people exist and they don’t feel awkward walking in to those spaces, yet could just as well engage in sexual assault of people matching their gender without anybody questioning their right to be there.

It’s “linked” in the sense that it licenses Alex Jones’ name, but with the intent to sell supplements. It would then be promoted on the show, paid for as if it were a sponsorship, but it wasn’t actually “his” company. It’s technically owned by a different person, and isn’t directly financially tied to Infowars, only paying for product placement.

If I recall correctly, it’s owned by a friend of Jones.

They’re refusing to encourage the venue to underpay the person while using tips to make up for it. In practice, it’s not the same thing.

The immediate direct implication is, yes, not giving that person money, but if people as a whole continue to engage in that behavior, companies can go ahead and tell their workers “sure we aren’t paying you a living wage directly, but everyone will tip you enough to make up the difference” and that will allow them to keep more of the sale proceeds for themselves as profit, rather than paying it to the worker.

However, the more people refuse to tip, the less and less the employer can use the excuse that “they’ll make up for the difference with tips,” and will then be forced to pay the employee directly without making their income dependent on guilt-tripping people for extra cash, because otherwise, that employee will simply quit because they’re not getting paid enough, and no new employee will fill that position if it’s clear there aren’t enough tips to cover the difference between their actual wage, and a livable one.

The only reason tips as a concept exist is to allow employers to pay people less, then promise other people’s generosity will bring that pay up to par. If it’s too expensive for the business to offer fair wages with their current prices, then they should just incorporate tips into the price if it’s going to be necessary for their workers to receive tips anyways. If the business is making more than enough, and is simply using tips to subsidize what they would otherwise pay their workers, then a lack of tips necessitates them slightly cutting into their margins and paying their workers fairly.

The inherent act of not tipping in itself is denying the employee a payment in the moment, but the goal of such an action is to discourage the behavior by the corporation, to then make it necessary for that corporation to pay a living wage directly, which is objectively good for all parties involved (workers know how much they’ll make and get stable, livable wages, and customers know what they’re paying without feeling bad if they can’t afford making their $12 water $15.)

The longer you allow a system like this to exist, the more you’ll see what’s already happening, companies pushing it in where it traditionally was never present, minimum suggested amounts going up from 10% to 12% to 15% to 18% etc, and wages staying low as companies try using your generosity to subsidize wages they would otherwise have to pay themselves to retain workers. Not tipping is inherently a rejection of this system, and the only way you stop such a system from expanding is by rejecting it.

Most people going to concerts can’t exactly leave the building, find a different store selling water, buy it, then bring it back in through the concert venue. (Nor are they capable of magically knowing the prices inside beforehand) The reason the price was so high was likely because the venue knew they had a captive audience, and when people need water, they need water. If someone is just forced to pay $12 for water, asking them to subsidize your worker’s wages on top is a shitty move, and if nobody tips, then maybe that company will realize that they can’t subsidize the wages they pay with tips, and stop relying on them.

Then the attendant gets paid fairly from the get go, and they don’t need to be offended if someone doesn’t tip, because why the hell should anybody have to subsidize a corporation’s wages? If they want workers, charge what’s required in the price to pay those workers, no tip required.

Who exactly? At present I’m wholly unaware of anybody on the FB board who I’d call a Nazi.

I’m genuinely asking by the way, that isn’t meant to be some kind of rebuttal.

However, I would again note the fact that any current board members were likely not on the board when many Facebook users joined, (and the lock-in they experience keeps them there) and even if they were, what kind of person is ever aware of individual corporate board members?

Extrapolating that back out to your Nazi bar analogy, that would be like if you went into a bar, the people in there were your friends and family, the workers at the front were normal people, but the person who owned the LLC behind the bar was a Nazi. In that case, to “be astonished at the fascist rhetoric of the Nazi bar” isn’t exactly unexpected!

Comparing Facebook to a Nazi bar is ridiculous.

Facebook, just like all social media companies, has continually used the overton window as its standard for acceptable content. When political leanings shift, the way the company polices content on its platform, chooses what topics to boost or bury, and decides what topics to promote as part of its corporate culture changes.

It is by its very nature the thing that maximizes the political acceptableness of content for advertisers to appear next to. Most people joined Facebook when the political climate was nowhere near as right-wing as it is now, so it’s not like they walked in, saw a sign that said “We’re Nazis” and went “okay, this is fine.”

The fact they’re changing their hateful conduct policy now is what’s turning them into the Nazi bar, they weren’t always that way. (and yes, I’m aware Facebook and Zuck did tons of horrible shit in the past, but as a platform it wasn’t anywhere near the level of terrible it will be now, nor did it have anywhere near Nazi levels of political leanings)

And not to mention how the network effect kind of changes this from “Nazi Bar” to “Nazi City” because it has a much more difficult process to escape due to it quite literally holding you and all your friends, family, photos, and videos hostage. There’s less of a choice when it comes to leaving platforms that ensnare you with network effects than there is to simply leave a bar.

Debt can have its benefits depending on the use case.

Expecting the average person to save up the full price of a house before buying it is simply an unattainable standard for most people to meet. The same can go for cars, too.

Sometimes, debt can just smooth out uneven pay periods. If you need to spend $200/mo, and in 2 months you get paid $150 and $250 respectively, you’ll need $50 of debt in that first month to smooth out your varied income, before paying it back in the 2nd month.

It’s primarily the predatory practices and systems (high interest, encouraging it where it’s not needed, hidden junk fees, etc) that make debt so harmful, not the fundamental concept of debt itself.

And oh, just a random fun fact you might actually find quite interesting, did you know that debt existed before money did? It was actually the primary thing that allowed individuals to engage in trade, and money only came along later as a means of tracking debt.

Disclaimer: I don’t know if this actually happens. Wouldn’t surprise me though.

It depends on the circumstance.

When you die, all your assets become part of your estate, which is usually then distributed either to your spouse, next of kin, or whatever individuals/nonprofits you name in your will.

If your house is part of that estate, and has a mortgage, then if your family wants to claim the house from the estate, they then have to take responsibility for, and pay the mortgage until they can sell the house, for instance.

If you owed a debt before you died, then died, and your estate had money in it, the lender would get to request that the estate pay off the debts owed before the family could lay claim to the remainder.

But in no way do any debts ever simply transfer from a deceased person to the next of kin without explicit consent, often within very specific situations, like taking claim of a house with a mortgage.

Man uses machine trained on data from the internet to learn how to do what he would have otherwise just looked up how to do directly from the internet had the machine not existed.

Wow, absolutely shocking story 🙄

Local AI Tagging (Optional)

Finally a good use of AI that doesn’t overpromise functionality it can’t actually provide. Just a system for rewriting page text as tags. This is a feature I’ll legitimately use.

I think that given that context, the idea they used it as a base image and generated the rest on top of it does actually seem quite likely. Especially if they’d used a tool like ControlNet, that would explain how the text was still as consistent as it is, albeit not perfect.

I suppose it sort of looks like that, but it also looks like it could have been an image that was smoothed/upscaled by an “AI” algorithm, but not generated by it directly.

I’ve upscaled a lot of images before, and the slight font blurring, crinkle lines becoming smoother, translucency of the fingernail looking off, etc all looks to me more like upscaling or smoothing than it does a complete generation.

I’m not ruling it out completely, but generally, this length and quality of text isn’t something an AI model can consistently do. It will deteriorate very quickly if you try and have a GenAI model output this much text.

Doesn’t look like that to me, it just looks like someone quickly drew it up in that general style.

It’s what drives most billionaire mentalities: elite projection.

They think that what they want must be what everyone wants. They believe that what’s best for them is best for everyone as long as they believe it to be morally okay for their own interests.

For a billionaire that regularly isolates himself from not just society, but also his own company’s employees, having fake profiles where computers do the communication instead of a human, go along and agree with whatever you say, remain eternally unoffensive, and exist solely to increase engagement doesn’t seem like a bad idea, since it seems almost like what he’d want for himself.

Everything is the border. Attacks on other innocent human beings? Immigrants. High food prices? Immigrants. Unemployment? Immigrants.

It couldn’t possibly be any kind of political policy they actively oppose, socioeconomic issues, no, nothing like that.

Just let them be racist and all your problems will be solved, because that’s how we really solve issues in our society.

And anti-healthcare weirdos don’t have a right to anybody ever respecting them.

Of course he’s a real estate developer.

Oh no, that’s not him, that’s a different person. I was showing how those are the only two accounts on all of LinkedIn with the same name as him, and showing that his account is no longer there.

This man doesn’t even know the difference between AGI and a text generation program, so it doesn’t surprise me he couldn’t tell the difference between that program and real, living human beings.

He also seems to have deleted his LinkedIn account.

“I didn’t think stopping immigration and deporting immigrants would mean not getting more immigrants to work and deporting MY workforce!”