Hobo @ Hobo @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

300

Joined

2 yr. ago

Goes further back than that. In the late 90s early 2000s basically all 3 of the MMOs on the market were subscription models (Ultima, Everquest, and Warcraft are the ones that spring to my mind). Essentially a pay per time scheme where if you were playing the game you paid for it monthly.

This guy is just so far down the modern game industry rabbit hole he forgot that it wasn't as profitable as the soul sucking microtransaction/whaling hellscape that's become the norm.

https://youtu.be/EtHOmforqxk

Fuck that guy. He's dead now at least, but shitty that he never really faced any repercussions for the twisted shit he did.

It's literally not that simple, and at this point you're not even reading what I'm saying. What you are claiming is not black and white even by your own sources. It speaks volumes about how much thought you've actually put into the subject. You're far worse than the far left anti-2nd amendment folks in a lot of ways, and have roughly the same understanding of the subject as they do about it.

I hope one day you'll learn nuance. Good day to you.

Federal courts in the decade since have found many restrictions on the right to own and use weapons perfectly congruent with that decision. Heller merely says the government can't enforce laws that prevent (most) Americans from possessing commonly used weapons in their homes for self-defense.

From the introductory paragraph in your own link. Again this isn't whether most Americans can posses weapons but does a domestic abuse restraining order rise to the level of due process. Which oddly falls in line with the second paragraph of the source you linked:

Courts have found that Heller does not preclude laws that prohibit anyone younger than 21 from buying guns in retail stores; laws that bar people who committed a single nonviolent felony from ever owning a gun; laws that severely restrict the ability to carry a gun outside the home; laws that ban commonly owned magazines of a certain capacity; or laws that require handguns to incorporate untested, expensive, and unreliable "microstamping" technology.

There's nothing I found in the article you linked which claims that the 2nd amendment is an absolute right that cannot be revoked. You're arguing something that simply isn't a thing and avoiding the actual question at hand.

I think there's subtleties that you're ignoring to push an agenda. I do think it's important to understand the question on the table though. The question isn't what rights you have, but when is the government allowed to take away those rights.

Maybe we should take a step back. Do you think the government can revoke a person's 2nd amendment rights? For example do prisoners have the right have a shiv in their cell? The question posed in this instance is whether or not a restraining order for domestic assault rises to the level of due process for taking away that right. It's already firmly written into law that the government can leverage due process to take away rights. Unless you're arguing that it is an absolute right, and we should all be allowed to have nuclear bombs and prisoners should be allowed to have shivs, then I think you're missing the point.

You also seem to have a very tenuous definition of the 2nd amendment that you're willing to change when it doesn't fit your needs. It seems like you might want to think it through a bit more, and perhaps try to get at the root of the question at hand, instead of spouting that everyone should be allowed to have arms no matter what. The implication of that statement is a bit terrifying, and is well outside of our current legal adjudication of the 2nd amendment.

Where are you getting that well regulated means well armed? It meant, and still means, trained, able to take orders, and battlefield ready. Where do you think the term "regulars" comes from in the context of historical warfare and what do you think that term means?

Did you throughly misunderstand collective rights theory or something? Could you possibly point me to the interpretation where it claims "well regulated" means "well armed" in the context of the 2nd amendment? I certainly couldn't find any sources to back that claim and it seems like you might have pulled it out of your backside.

If they're a terrorist they have to tell you. It's the law.

Right there standing next to Floyd.

Does the set of all sets contain itself situation huh?

What do you mean?

You should read the article because it's way fucking crazier than you think:

Sources told WTVY that Michael Halstead informed officers that they had put Logan’s body into the freezer on October 11. The sources claimed that Headland Police failed to find the body which was allegedly wrapped up in blankets and tarpaulin. Halstead was also arrested that day and jailed for ten days for failing to show up to court on domestic abuse charges.

The police KNEW there was a body in the freezer because the dad TOLD them. The police failed to find the body they knew was on the property IN A FREEZER.

How it got in the freezer in the first place? No ine can really say not even the guy who put it there:

Sheriff Blankenship said that Halstead claimed to have had a manic episode and couldn’t remember how the body got into the freezer.

So yes it's even crazier. It's not really clear from the article what the cause of death was, but a bipolar dad that doesn't remember exactly why they put a body in a freezer is a pretty solid suspect. Shit is absolutely wild and I'm just sitting here wondering how many freezers they had on the property for the police to not find it AFTER BEING TOLD IT WAS THERE.

I think their really, and I cannot stress this enough, paper thin argument was that Palestinian isn't a race per se. They also are ignoring the very clear intention that is discrimination based on nationality which is illegal in most cases in the US (see customs and border patrol for exceptions that shouldn't be granted but are in fact institutionally legal).

Again their point is fairly pointless, useless even, and they could've said it without coming off like an asshole trying to nettle at a topic they don't understand. But I do think that was the point to their poorly constructed question.

For reference what is happening is federally illegal and specifically goes against the protections against national origins (see the section on public accommodations): https://www.justice.gov/crt/federal-protections-against-national-origin-discrimination-1

I always preferred the Mark Twain quote, "Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." Because I've been beaten bloody with that experience on more than one occasion.

You're using the triune model to draw some rather lofty conclusions that aren't really up to date with our understanding of neurology. It's way over simplified and doesn't really work that way. More recent studies suggest that the neocortex was already present in even the earliest mammals, so it's not quite as straightforward and the demarcation isn't quite as clear cut, as you seem to be presenting it. "Old brain" doesn't "take over" in the way you're presenting it either but appears to act as a primary driver for those basic functions.

Not sure how to even tackle the loftly conclusions you've made because the don't seem to be built on a solid foundation. I think things might be quite a bit more interesting, and wildly more complex, then you seem to be presenting it. I'll just leave some sources below with a quick note. Not trying to be condescending, or rude, just a topic that is a bit interesting, and a lot of people tend to draw some lofty conclusions from the triune model which has largely fallen by the wayside in neurology.

Read the wiki to see how the model was developed: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triune_brain

A quick introduction to why it was important but has shown to be overly simplified and mostly incorrect: https://medicine.yale.edu/news/yale-medicine-magazine/article/a-theory-abandoned-but-still-compelling/

Further details into how we don't have a "lizard brain": https://thebrainscientist.com/2018/04/11/you-dont-have-a-lizard-brain/

Deacon's paper on rethinking the mammalian brain: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/31439318_Rethinking_Mammalian_Brain_Evolution

Here now you can pretend to be born in the mid to late 80s instead:

https://youtu.be/wvAnQqVJ3XQ?si=j2IDH3d8ntQ22u8P

It's escapism I think. At least that's part of it. Having a machine that won't judge you, will serve as a perfect echo chamber, and will immediately tell you AN answer can be very appealing to some. I don't have any data, or any study to back it up, just my experience from seeing it happen.

I have a friend who I feel like I kind of lost to chatgpt. I think he's a bit unhappy with where he is in life. He got the good paying job, the house in the suburbs, wife, and 2.5 kids, but didn't ever think about what was next. Now he's just a bit lost I think, and somehow convinced himself that people weren't as good as chatting with a bot.

It's weird now. He spends long nights and weekends talking to a machine. He's constructed elaborate fictional worlds within his chatgpt history. I've grown increasingly concerned about him, and his wife clearly is struggling with it. He's obviously depressed but instead of seeking help or attempting to figure himself out, he turned to a non-feeling, non-judgmental, emotionless tool for answers.

It's a struggle to talk to him now. It's like talking to a cryptobro at peak btc mania. The only thing that he wants to talk about is LLMs. Trying to bring up that maybe spending all your time talking to a machine is a bit unhealthy invokes his ire and he'll avoid you for several days. Like a herion addict struggling with addiction, even pointing out the obvious flaws in what he's doing makes him distance himself more from you.

I'm not young, not old exactly either, but I've known him for 25 years in my adult life. We met in college and have been friends ever since. I know many won't quite understand but knowing someone that long, and remaining close, talk every few days, friends is quite rare. At this point he is my longest held friendship and I feel like I'm losing him to a robot. I've lost other friends to addiction in my life and to say that it's been similar is under stating it. I don't know what to do for him. I don't know if there's really anything I CAN do for him. How do you help someone that doesn't even think they have a problem?

I guess my point is, if you find someone who is just depressed enough, just stuck enough, with a particular proclivity towards computers/the internet then you have a perfect canidate for falling down the LLM rabbit hole. It offers them an out to feeling like they're being judged. They feel like the insanity it spits out is more sane than how they feel now. They think they're getting somewhere, or at least escaping their current situation. Escapism is very appealing when everything else seems pointless and sort of gray I think. So that's at least one type of person that can fall down the chapgpt/LLM rabbit hole. I'm sure there's others out there too with there own unique motivations and reason's for latching onto LLMs.

Damn I've just been waiting for it to rain and standing outside with my mouth open. This container thing is a game changer!