That looks great!
Growing up, I despised eggs except the ones that were thoroughly disguised(as in leavening)… I had a bad egg-salad experience as a kid and it stuck with me. In the last few years, though, I’ve come around and can enjoy them.
I’ll have to give them a shot as a pizza topping. I imagine they vaguely fit the same texture/umami role that a slice of mozzarella does for a margherita pizza.
Thanks for the suggestion and enjoy yours tomorrow!
Everything except the eggs sounds great – and I’m not judging the egg, just curious:
I don’t think of egg as a topping that would survive being baked. Does that go on before or after cooking? sliced or diced?
Like many things, a tool is only as smart as the wielder. There’s still a ton of critical thinking that needs to happen as you do something as simple as bake bread. Using an AI tool to suggest ingredients can be useful from a creative perspective, but should not be assumed accurate at face value. Raisins and Dill? maybe ¯\(ツ)/¯, haven’t tried that one myself.
I like AI, for being able to add detail to things or act as a muse, but it cannot be trusted for anything important. This is why I’m ‘anti-AI’. Too many people (especially in leadership roles) see this tool as a solution for replacing expensive humans with something that ‘does the thinking’; but as we’ve seen elsewhere in this thread, AI CANT THINK. It only suggests items that are statistically likely to be next/near based on its input.
In the Security Operations space, we have a phrase “trust but verify”. For anything AI, I would use 'doubt, then verify" instead. That all said. AI might very well give you a pointer to the place to ask how much motrin an infant should get. Hopefully, that’s your local pediatrician.
I’m SO mad at this story. There is no reason to charge the parents. As others have stated, helicoptering kiddos is detrimental, and they need to be allowed to roam their environment – That can come at the cost of danger, but we cannot be expected to grow with 0 risk.
Sure, as a parent, you can state: ‘don’t go there’, and ‘always look both ways’, but kids are kids and there’s only so much you can enforce without being overbearing. In this scenario, without video evidence, there’s no clear conclusion about fault for either the driver or the child.
I’m okay with letting the driver off (criminally, let insurance pay the family but don’t put the driver in jail) and acknowledging this as an accidental death, especially since he stuck around and is complying. Charging the parents for negligence, though, is just fucking brutal when they are suffering the loss of a child, not to mention the impact on the older son, who probably is feeling an unreasonable amount unreasonable of guilt: “I could have held his hand; I could have reminded him of the road…” (not his quotes, my presumed internal dialog). Again, as others have stated, this is a city planning problem, not a parental one: If there was a way to walk to a grocery store that didn’t cross a 4-lane road, that’d be a better option, but there are plenty of places where that is not possible.
These parents do NOT need the extra burden of being held legally liable for an accident and anyone blaming them for this without knowing them personally and being able to describe other aspects of their parent as negligent is just an asshole.
I’m no longer at my computer where typing is easy. I thank all of you for responding in good faith, and I’ll be reading the various links. Thanks for engaging with me.
Okay. My method doesn’t work. We can’t reform the system from within.
What does?
What’s your perfect solution? How do we get there?
I’m honestly curious. I’m pissed at the status quo, and don’t know how to make things better with my limited personal power.
I’m now mobile, so my formatting will suffer.
Capitalism = bad. I’m fully behind that, and see it as the root of the problem. What I don’t see is a path forward that doesn’t involve incremental progress, even if not all demographics are served. At least not without violence that will be disrupt even more.
I think this is where we disagree, but I might still be missing something.
You (assorted folks responding to me) want an epoch change where we rise up and take back the power we have. We have it right now, but the price to pay to enforce that is too high for me.
I want a progression where we work towards owning that power. We had it partially when unions were still strong, but it was undermined. In my mind, the solution is education, but I have no power to enact that directly. My ability to influence is limited to my local org and voting.
A green party, socialist party, etc, will never win an election in our current environment. Votes there are literally useless, if not spoiling a candidate that has at least some if your views. The system is rigged, sure, but you can’t flip this table and walk away.
Can we separate this discussion into talking about politics and elections and eliminate Israel/Palestine? I’m a-religious, pro Palestine, pro humanitarian, but having that angle seems to quickly degenerate every conversation into ‘both sides are genocide’ and avoid the’how do we move forward’ question. I think these can be separated, but maybe that is also a place we disagree.
I feel we’re playing different games, or using different terms.
Help me understand.
Firstly. Let’s define words: I’m assuming/using my view of a US-centric Liberal vs Conservative.
Liberal: Democratic party, wants to make life better for the larger segment of the population.
Conservative: Republican party, wants to consolidate power and wealth in the hands of a few.
That’s my personal and biased broad-strokes view of the political landscape.
Conservatives have managed to gather enough popular support that people will vote against their best interest for either perceived economic gain or for ‘hurt the other people more.’
Stepping back even further, what is your end-goal? How do you respect the desires of millions of people without some sort of representation, and if you have such, how do you ensure that the representative aligns with the goals of their constituents?
Sadly, I’m offline for the day, but I’d be happy to continue this conversation.
In this post: not realizing that the ideal solution is not a single step away, but rather multiple steps – and they will not be simple to sell to a general populace.
I’ll admit I’m not familiar with the term. ‘Electorialism’ seems to be, according to Wikipedia, a ‘half-way step’ between Authoritarianism and Democracy.
As far as I know, we are still not quite in an Authoritarian state here in the US. We are more likely to be headed in the opposite way from Electorialism; where we are transitioning from what is a democratic process to one where oligarchs have consolidated enough power and influence that they can just say, ‘fuck it, we win.’ In that case, yes, I do want to make a case against Electorialism.
In Electorialism, the dominant party, presumably the authoritarian one, conducts elections that allow their opponents a stage and promises to be free and fair while still controlling the levers of power. What we have seen in the last 8 years is a party, republicans, that are throwing every possible strategy at the wall in the effort to undermine and discredit elections with the end result that if they win, the election will be seen as fair and, if they lose, the election will be seen as unfair.
All concepts of what are optimal democratic processes are going to be just that: concepts. We live in the real world. There are millions of people you have to convince to move to your desired method of representation. I think we agree on the end-goal, I just disagree on how to get there and think we can’t jump from a Trump presidency directly to a worker-owned utopia.
Help me out. What’s our next step?
Mine is to help elect people to local, state and federal offices that want to make life for everyone better.
My comment was removed by the mods… probably because I let my rage show. Though the mod log shows rule 2 instead of rule 1 :P
Here’s a longer and nicer version:
I’m a (US) liberal, and I don’t approve of any of the views described by kittenzrulz123. Lumping half the country into a single bucket is not going to give you a good overview of the myriad ideals we might have individually.
You have a choice. You can look at the political landscape at the moment of the election and choose one of four options:
At this time, our election system really only works for two parties. Any third-party vote is useless, if not counterproductive. If you can’t understand how that math works, let me know and I’ll break it down for you. I’d love to change that, but the process is by using our ability during primaries to put forward more liberal candidates that support election reforms, not by putting our heads in the sand and voting 3rd party hoping that we will make people notice… hint: they will not.
If you don’t like your choices when you go to the voting booth in November, the solution is to get involved in late November and make things better next time. Join a local democratic organization and become part of the solution. Complaining online about how your choices suck is something we can fix if we all jump in. If you’re not doing that, then you are abdicating your responsibility and allowing others to make the choice of who represents us instead. If you choose not to be part of the selection process, the very least you can do is vote for the ‘lesser evil’ and not make things worse.
Side note: the Primary election is the end of that selection process, not the start. Putting your values on the primary ballot is where you should spend your energy if you’re mad at the status quo.
I will admit that I’m angry that we didn’t get a Democratic primary and that Harris was ordained as Biden’s successor without any popular input. The DNC is to blame for that fuck-up. It’s irrefutable, though, that Harris would have been better for Palestine, the US economy, US healthcare, foreign relations, and dozens of other topics than trump is.
Would Claudia de la Cruz have been better? Sure. Her platform looks awesome. Did she have even a chance of winning? no.
I think there is potential that this was intended.
PalWorld was SO on the nose modeled after pokemon plus Breath of the Wild that it couldn’t be anything but a stab at Nintendo. And yet, it seems that (I’m not a lawyer) they skirted around ever actually infringing on copyrights. If you want to build a zoo full of creatures, there are only so many ways you can combine things without making a fire dog or ice dragon, and then comparisons can be made. PalWorld has many creatures that I don’t recognize as being similar to existing pokemon. Given that Nintendo has not gone after PalWorld for copyright infringement, I’d say that means they don’t have a case.
Patents are another angle, and I’m far from a patent lawyer. Have you ever read one? They are full of jargon and what seem to be nonsense words, especially a software patent for a video game. I found an article that describes how Nintendo can use a ‘new’ patent to attack PalWorld, but near the end he clearly calls out that there is a difference between ‘legal’ and ‘legitimate.’ I can’t seem to find the actual ‘throwing a ball to make a thing happen’ new patent, but I’d assume PalWorld doesn’t infringe the original patent, or Nintendo would have just used that one. The article author also notes how Nintendo applied for a divisional patent near the end of a window for doing so, which presumably extends the total lifetime of the patent protection. A new divisional patent last year probably means we have 40 years of no ‘ball-throwing mechanics.’
I hope that this whole thing is a stunt. PalWorld was commercially successful, and even if they lose and have to modify the game, it will remain successful. I think that there’s a possibility that the developer and publisher are fighting against software patents kind of in general and used PalWorld as bait that Nintendo fell for.
If they lose, then there will be a swath of gamers who are at least mildly outraged at software patents. Popular opinion can (occasionally) sway policy.
If they win, then we have another chink in the armor of software patents as a whole. See Google vs Oracle regarding the ability to patent an API.
If we can manage to kill software patents for gameplay mechanics, like throwing balls at things, being able to take off and land seamlessly, or having a recurring enemy taunt you, then we get better games that remix things that worked.
Imagine how terribly different games would be if someone had patented “A action where a user presses a button to swing their weapon, and if that weapon hits an enemy, that enemy takes damage.”
While I would hate to lose actual trees, I’m medium on the idea of this on it’s own. People need lots of things and space, which causes the removal of trees. If we can replicate some of their functions, such as CO2 absorption with this tech, then that seems good. If upkeep is the same as a tree, I don’t see a downside to the overall concept.
My thought would be that this shows up on top of the buildings instead of at ground level, though… Plant real trees and put these on the roof. The real loss would be if we stop making green spaces because these things meet the need for O2. Green spaces in cities do way more than just clean the air, though, so I’m not sure we’re that dystopian yet.
The photo looks like it doubles as a bench too, so maybe that helps justify its footprint. Make them a mini-light show with varied colors and it can become a functional art installation. How long until it has spikes to prevent someone from taking a nap on it, though?
I’m pretty sure that ‘heavy bags filled with books’ is a backpack for school, but I think it’s funny to imagine you also carrying a burlap sack with anti-goose novels specifically to ward off this creature.
I don’t know that ‘Conservative’ exists anymore. I’m American, but I think these comments work everywhere else, as Authoritarianism rises.
Growing up, I believed that liberal/conservative was just a difference in approach, but not a difference in end-goal. Both ‘teams’ wanted the country to prosper. In my 40s, now, I clearly see that we have different goals: Liberals want everyone to be prosperous, healthy, fulfilled. Conservatives value the prosperity only of those on top.
You may identify as conservative, little ‘c’, respect tradition and be careful with spending, etc; but I want you to closely evaluate the actions of people using that label across the globe. A vote for a conservative or right-wing candidate is a vote for the top 1% or less of the population of the planet. They may align with you on some topics, such as religion, abortion, fiscal policies, regulations, and more; but that is a ploy and they are absolutely willing to throw you away as soon as they have your vote and will cut everything you depend on once in power in order to pad their own pockets.
There are certainly perverse incentives and systemic issues that make even liberal politicians support bad policies, but the voter bloc that is ‘liberal’ wants to make things better for everyone. The conservative politicians, at least in the US where I’m paying attention, seem to be hell-bent on making things worse instead.
This has less to do with Trump’s actions, and more to do with how the convervatives behaved…
Not OP, but this is a principle thing. We should not have to change our behavior to make the computers work for us. They are unthinking, unfeeling tools, despite anyone’s claims around “AI”. They change for us.
That runs into a problem of tech literacy, though. If the companies running the tech we use don’t have incentive to make it work better, you have to know how to do it yourself and that’s generally not trivial. If I were OP, I’d look into self-hosted home automation. There’s some overhead and tinkering required, but the customization and privacy gains are likely worth it.
Side note. Anyone have any knowledge of a Google Home Mini repurpose? I’m more of a software guy, and have no clue if or how I can make the hardware mine. I’ve been slowly removing my reliance on google products lately. I use it mostly as a speaker, though, so worst case is it ends up as e-waste.
I DESPISE AI in fast food restaurants… as well as just about everywhere else… but in fast food it really pisses me off.
I crave salty trash food every once in a while, but when my local Taco Bell greeted me with an obviously AI drive-thru, I just drove away and never came back.
Fast food and retail were the places you went to get your first job with no experience or school necessary. Using AI to ‘take their jobs’ in the pursuit of ‘efficiency’ is just adding velocity to our plunge into dystopia. I mean no disrespect to those working those currently jobs, though, as the ‘were’ in that sentence is carrying a lot and the article is right that the jobs are stressful and relentless, and it angers me that your livelihood is yet again being threatened by corporate greed.
If there were compensating factors, like UBI, free higher education and better worker protections, then sure, let’s let “ai” take over the things that we don’t want to do… but I don’t think we’re going in that direction.
My local one changed the play place into a conference room. That’s where adults have fun… right?
The McDonalds near me recently clobbered their tiny playplace and turned it into a … conference room/center?
About the only time I went there was when I need a place for my kiddos to spend some energy on a rainy day at like 8am, before other things opened. I was happy to buy a coffee and biscuit for myself and maybe a treat for them to pay for my occupancy.
Now, though, and I know I wasn’t a giant source of income, they have lost my custom and I just can’t see how any real business would ever run a meeting in a McDonalds conference room, so it just seems like a dumb move.
Maybe they want to discourage parents bringing their children? That also seems pretty stupid.
I get the thrust of the song, but I have a question for you and/or anyone else who has insight:
I make small aggressions, like OP, where I assume I’m costing a corpo and giving to an artist through it, even if minuscule.
Examples:
Similar to OP, I have a streaming service ‘downloaded’ playlist of songs I like. I tend to leave my PC playing them in shuffle/repeat during my workday. I might have my volume on or off depending on my level of focus, but I can’t see how that “engagement” doesn’t benefit the artist without costing me anything – maybe a smidge more electricity.
Since I saw The Spiffing Brit’s runtime video, I no longer close a youtube tab if I decide I want something else. I mute the tab, set the speed to .25 and ignore it for a while. Costs me electricity, not that much bandwidth, and presumably pays the channel more than usual. Maybe fucks with analytics per-video, but probably not enough to bother the creator, and if it fucks with ‘the algorithm’ and pushes people to channels I already like, then that’s a google problem.
I also have an Epic Games account, where I “buy” every single free game. I assume these have either already paid the developer a fixed fee for supporting development, or are paying based on sales volume. Either way, they presumably paid money to be able to offer these as a loss-leader. Most are games I would not have bought anyway, so I’m not costing the developer a potential sale and I will never buy anything through Epic games, so it should be just a loss. I actually want insight on this one, in case there are devs/publishers here. If this costs you when I buy your free game, there might be others like me who just need to know we’re not helping.
Aside from the fact that my engagement with these platforms could be used as leverage (’ we have X million active users…'), I can’t see any negative to my attacks on them. It’s possible the artists can’t perceive it, but if the corpos love it, they wouldn’t make me pass a CAPTCHA to buy a game.
The question, then, is: Am I hurting the artists, or helping them?