Don’t think we even have actual good body modification, it’ll be all owned by corpoligarchs and corpooligans.

Ironic. Spyware gets replaced by other spyware (that is even less energy efficient).

A good AI chatbot is recognised by which authoritarian and capitalist governments want to ban it.

A bit flawed. What if the same prompts are used but both models are required to keep their responses equally brief?

‘Openly courting fascism’ is a bit of an understatement, tbh. Elon Musk did a sieg heil and Trump wants to deport minorities. Can’t get clearer than that.

The irony is also that when lusting after a woman is prohibitied (and homosexuality is too), and yet you’re expected to “go forth and procreate”… how the fuck are you supposed to procreate when you can’t because your own rules contradict each other?

So, in a nutshell, legalised bribery. For which the answer should be higher wages, I suppose…

It’s a bit of doublespeak.

100*

He could get into the forever box in Minecraft.

Exactly. Good housing can be done.

Shortages are an issue, and desirable only by capitalism – because it drives up prices.

2017 for me if we go by having processed that year…,

Link for those not using TikTok

(at the end it features that vid)

Reminder that Trump himself is in photos with Epstein.

TIL we have it. That is very useful, thank you!

That’s also my perspective, speaking as someone who also remembers the early days of the Net.

How the hell is it gross though to use toilet paper when your hand would be even dirtier with poo if you use it plainly?? That’s a recipe for illness…

That strike authorisation is very interesting, I don’t even know if we have that here. Great idea!

Thing is that those billionnaires do exactly that, just the wrong way. No one needs to be a billionnaire or multimillionnaire.

Outsider but I’d say TMI is simple:

when you can reasonably narrow it down to a handful, say a group smaller than say, 25 people. At least, EU laws state that in such circumstances, you shouldn’t share. This is because then any random person could be able to go off addresses or such, and find them.

For example, with naming sites, putting up the most common names - fine. Really rare names? Nope.

But then also, what if you have one thing that’s common, and another that’s also common, and together, you can narrow it down to a small group?

Then I’d also say: don’t tell the common thing you wanted to share.

Furthermore: there should be consent. The right to be forgotten or at least stay anonymous should be important.

So:

i) do not share specific information that could narrow them down to a group smaller than 25 people,

ii) if sharing common information, combined with earlier known common-ish information, will narrow them down, don’t share.

iii) if the person themselves (and verifies such) shares identifying info within a specific group, information should stay within that group, and only be shared upon agreement with the person.

The only exception imo would be for suspects fleeing a life-threatening/socio-economically extremely ruining crime scene they created. Think stab murders, million-fraudsters, and people harassing minorities. But even then: no name-leaking, address leaking, or photos. Only appearance and behavioral characteristics - only things that will help arrest them, while also giving them a chance to better their life later after. Only when this fails to find the suspect, should that information also be shared, against the person’s consent.

These rules should apply to everyone, regardless of whether they are celebrities or not.

Difference is that my saying is based on a historically vested principle, simple as: one man, one vote. Instead of: your vote doesn’t count, only the oligarch’s does.