I use Firefox because it has Unlock Origin.

Discord offers automatic compression for images uploaded from mobile, but not from desktop IIRC. It’s weird.

After the previous crap show debates that happened in 2016 with both candidates and the moderator trying to yell over each other, I think this is for the best.

Lots of conservatives look at Trump’s trials and think that the whole ordeal is a sham to keep him down. If anything, emphasizing him being a felon is going to embolden them in their persecutory beliefs. It isn’t the zinger you seem to think it is, it just makes the justice system look illegitimate in their eyes.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that! I could swipe down on the fingerprint sensor to look at my notifications! That so boss, dude.

I mean, if Copilot can’t be expected to provide truthful information, then why are they passing it off as a helpful AI assistant? What’s the point of using it if it’s just going to spew lies and slander? As some kind of satire generator? If so, why don’t they market it as such?

If a fortune cookie company was printing inciteful and defamatory fortunes, then yes, they would be responsible for those.

Fairy tales, eh? Like that the universe could not have possibly created itself and all that came to exist must necessarily have an origin which we know as God? Or are you referring to the incredibly well-attested resurrection of Christ, which most people dismiss simply on the grounds that “I assume this is impossible, therefore it didn’t happen”?

Christianity is a religion that’s about sharing the love of God with everyone you know. There’s harsh truths that come with that, yes, but does someone really love you if they don’t tell you the truth? And how do you measure which ideas and concepts are “responsible” for human suffering? I could argue that the godlessness of the 20th century has led to the horrifying deaths of tens of millions of people in the 20th century and a depression/loneliness epidemic that’s so agonizing that people are creating wonders of technology to cure it in their futile effort to deny the existence of their souls. If religion was itself responsible for so much suffering, then why were communist nations, which rejected religion entirely, the cause of so many deaths? Surely if religion is such an idiotic and backwards idea, rejecting it should lead to an utter paradise, right?

I outgrew my atheism over five years ago and I thank the Lord for it. There’s plenty of room for you in this gathering too, fellow.

I am so, so looking forward to the legal quagmire that is pretty much anything involving AI.

we created the thing

we operate the thing

we make money off the thing

but pretty please don’t hold us responsible for what the thing does 🥺

I really miss the rear fingerprint reader on my Galaxy S8. It was so effortless to pick it up and touch the sensor at the same time whenever I wanted to use my phone. Honestly, I miss the retina scanner as well. It always worked better and faster for me than the face thing that most phones have.

Maybe the real accessibility advocacy was the friends we made along the way.

I’m glad you’re honest about what you think of me.

Jesus warned people very, very frequently against going to where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth AKA Hell. It was one of his favorite subjects.

Jesus told us not to judge others for the sins that we ourselves also commit. All the time we spend trying to decide the state of others’ souls would be far better spent taking the logs out of our eyes before yelling at others about the specks in theirs. Other people’s salvation isn’t your problem, you can’t force people to accept Jesus. (Especially after they have already died.) You can, and should, instead become a shining beacon of grace that attracts people to the faith.

Someone else mentioned whether or not Hitler is in hell. I really don’t care if he is. It isn’t my problem. Jesus saved a man who was right beside him in crucifixion moments before they died, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to hang my entire faith on the salvation of a certain person.

If you’re curious, you should read what some classical Christian writers have said about Hell. The best summary I can give is that it’s a place of such unbridled, horrifying hatred that people will tear the flesh off their bodies and throw it at other people while burning alive because they hate each other so much.

There is hope for everyone to get to Heaven, but by no means should we on Earth be making pronouncements on which specific people are in Hell. That’s way above our paygrade and I’m happy to keep it that way. People like this just make all Christians look stupid.

https://tenor.com/view/isildur-no-lotr-lord-of-the-rings-gif-26059395

I would argue that what rights there are is inherently a moral argument. “Murder is not a right” is a moral statement, for example. The government doesn’t change what rights it thinks there are without some kind of moral basis for it. Even if it’s primarily done in the legal sense, we still generally act in the legal system based on a system of morality. Another example: “Compelling people to testify against themselves is wrong.” It would be really useful for the state if they could do that, but legally speaking, the US recognizes that there is a right against self-incrimination.

Laws are written because someone, somewhere, found a moral fault in the law. It’s just that some people believe that the only morality is power, and thus anything they do is justified. That’s why we have the Bill of Rights: it’s meant to stop people from simply saying “the government needs this power so we’re going to give it that power.” It isn’t about creating rights, it’s about recognizing and protecting rights that have existed all along.

But if the government can decide what rights there are, then anything they do is morally correct, no? Unless you’re going to hold the government to a higher moral standard than themselves, in which case the government doesn’t actually grant rights; it can only protect or violate them. If we have a higher moral standard than the law, then human rights do not come from the government, they are defined by whatever that higher standard is.

I think the Nazis were an insane and utterly contemptible political party that destroyed a struggling nation to slake their own thirst for power. But if the government decides what rights there are, then they can simply legislate out of existence the rights of anyone under their jurisdiction. Thus, anything the government does to them is justified.

And my point is that it isn’t the government that decides what rights are. You started this whole “can the government decide what rights are” discussion by dismissing out of hand the right of a person to defend themselves. I’d like for you to go up to a sexual assault victim, especially one who defended themselves with a gun, and tell them “um ackshually you didn’t have the right to defend yourself because guns are evil 🤓”. Or would you only do that after the Second Amendment is deleted from the Constitution?