This is so funny

EDIT:

One recipe it dubbed “aromatic water mix” would create chlorine gas. The bot recommends the recipe as “the perfect nonalcoholic beverage to quench your thirst and refresh your senses”.

"Serve chilled and enjoy the refreshing fragrance,” it says, but does not note that inhaling chlorine gas can cause lung damage or death.

😆 😆

There’s literally no way to know…

Should Elvis really be vilified for liking blues and rock music and playing it himself? How does that hurt anyone?

Like should we be pissed at Django Reihnhardt? Or R.A The Rugged Man? What about Japanese bagpipe players?

If you’re able to find time to do a 10 day vipassana retreat, I highly recommend it. It’s free and they provide good food, run entirely by volunteers and donations and they have centers all over the world. I’ve done it a couple times and I know several other folks who have and it is a very compelling experience. I really think the technique they teach is a real cognitive skill, it’s taught from a buddhist perspective but there is no requirement that you adhere to any particular spiritual beliefs.

I’m sure there are other forms of meditation that may or may not be helpful, this is just the one I’ve had positive experiences with.

I suppose it isn’t linear but I suspect going from massive insane explosion in numbers to an 80% loss in a matter of weeks is pretty unusual. I think that growth was largely driven not by hype but by the automatic linking with other Zuckernedia properties.

I hope this doesn’t come across as patronizing but have you tried vipassana or a similar style of meditation? My wife had really severe anxiety and she found this to be the thing that helped her the most.

The law doesn’t even say it’s okay. What FaceDeer is referring to is that copyright infringement is a different category of crime than theft, which is defined as pertaining to physical property. It’s a meaningless point because, as you said, this isn’t a courtroom and we aren’t lawyers and the concept of intellectual property theft is well understood.

It’s a thing engineers and lawyers often seem to do, to take the way terms are used in a particular professional jargon and assume that that usage is “the real” usage.

Bit of a non-sequitor, that would be an anecdote and not a study. But yeah I would say that those things would violate social norms. I don’t know if I would agree that conservative people are more likely to violate those norms, which is presumably your point. Take a look at the history of political assassinations in the United States or in Europe, for example. Political violence does not belong uniquely to conservatives.

I think actually pretty much by definition that conservatives are MORE concerned with social norms. That’s kind of one of the primary traits of conservativism. I think a pretty good argument could be made that the Tumpist people you’re referring to do not so much represent a conservative point of view as much as a fascist or ultra-nationalist one, which explains why they will violate certain norms pertaining to peaceful electoral processes, while strongly maintaining other norms, like heterosexual nuclear families or religious observances or certain expectations of gender expression, etc.

I’m sure you’re aware that the manner in which legal bureaucracies define terms is a form of jargon that differentiates legal language from actual language.

They have separate categories of laws to deal with them because physical property is different than intellectual property. The same reason they use a different category of law to deal with identity theft.

I like what you’re saying so I’m not trying to be argumentative, but to be clear copyright protections don’t simply protect those who make a living from their productions. You are protected by them regardless of whether you intend to make any money off your work and that protection is automatic. Just to expand upon what @grue was saying.

What do you mean there is no debate? You’re debating it right now.

Plenty of artists view it as theft when people take their work and use it for their own ends without their permission. Not everyone, sure. But it’s a bit odd to state so emphatically that there is no debate.

That’s your opinion. The contrary opinion would be that copyright infringement is the theft of intellectual property, which many people view as of equal substantiality to physical property.

You can disagree with the concept of intellectual property but clearly there’s an alternative to your point of view that you can’t just dismiss by declaration.

It doesn’t matter how you recreate an image, if you recreate someone else’s work that is a violation of copyright.

Stealing someone’s style is a different matter.

Well said. Copyright is whatever, but the disrespect shown here is remarkable.

Amazon’s Data Re-Identification Services now free with Amazon Prime!

Indeed.

I’m afraid that even laws aren’t the root cause. I’m pretty concerned about the infrastructure we have allowed to be built around us, and what we will continue to allow to be built going forward. Even if we had strong privacy laws, laws are fickle things. The only thing separating us from full on Orwellian dystopia is some bad policy changes, the technology is already in place and we bought it on purpose.

You’ve got studies suggesting that conservatives are less accepting of social norms?

It is by way of nationally recognized organic standards. Otherwise governments tend to be in bed with agrochemical and agribusiness companies.

Relevant section of Canadian organic standards:

5.4.2 Where appropriate, the soil fertility and biological activity shall be maintained or increased, through: a) crop rotations that are as varied as possible and include plough-down crops, legumes, catch crops and deep-rooting plants; b) incorporation of plant and animal matter in compliance with this standard and with Table 4.2 (Column 1) of CAN/CGSB-32.311, including the following:

1. composted animal and plant matter;
2. non-composted plant matter, specifically legumes, plough-down crops or deep-rooting plants within the framework of an appropriate multiyear rotation plan; and
3. unprocessed animal manure, including liquid manure and slurry, subject to the requirements of 5.5.1

Organic is very much the same as about sustainability. The degree to which a particular enterprise succeeds in living up to organic principles and to internationally recognized organic standards is a different question.

Organic standards are available to be read. Here is the Canadian standards. You’ll notice that sustainability is very much the organizing principle.

Organic standards are not the be-all and end-all of sustainability, that is true.

Were those folks in agriculture organic farmers?

Do we use chemical pesticides and stuff. We can, yes. But what do you mean by chemical? Everything is a chemical. Water is a chemical. What we don’t use is synthetic pesticides or fertilizers. Which is actually a big difference from “conventional” agriculture for a variety of reasons.

Firstly, synthetic nitrogen is a major source of CO2 emissions. . Runoff from the over-application of fertilizers is also causing tremendous damage to aquatic environments. . Instead of relying on continuous application of synthetic nutrients, the organic practice is to build organic matter in soil (hence the term “organic”), which improves water holding capacity, reduces leaching, and reduces compaction. Instead we use compost and minerals like rock phosphate. When a more significant dose of nitrogen is needed we use stuff like feather meal or bone meal. These materials have a much reduced risk of leaching because the nutrients only become available in the soil as they are processed by the soil microbiome and are therefore released more slowly over a prolonged period of time.

Next, we don’t use herbicides. That means we don’t have bare exposed soil, which causes erosion, compaction, and top-soil loss (ie those things what caused the dust bowl). Instead we use cover crops, mulching, and mowing. Which builds up the organic matter in soil, promotes biodiversity, prevents erosion and compaction, and builds top-soil. Conversely, take a look at the rates of glyphosate application in contemporary “conventional” production and look at the articles that come up when you search for glyphosate.

Pesticides. Yes, we use pesticides. A pesticide is anything that is applied to remove pests. The difference is in the type and the effect. We do not use systemic pesticides (pesticides which are absorbed by a plant and render it toxic to pests over a prolonged period). We do not use pesticides that persist in the environment. We use things like sulfur and copper. We use things like bacteria and viruses. We use things like oils. We use things that target specific problem species at specific periods in their lifecycle. For instance, in my industry, we need to control for a creature called a coddling moth. When coddling moth levels get out of control, we spray a coddling moth virus. This virus kills coddling moth when applied at the proper time in their life cycle. It does not affect other species, and it does not persist in the environment. The conventional approach would be to spray a broad-spectrum insecticide that kills everything in the orchard. It’s very easy to see the difference for yourself. Simply visit a conventional farm in the summer, then go visit an organic farm. You’ll see the difference.

Finally, at least in my country, organic standards are the only legitimate regulated standards that protect animal welfare. Free range, cage free, whatever, that stuff doesn’t mean anything if there aren’t national or internationally recognized certifiable standards. We have that in organic. Organic livestock are not fed antibiotics and growth hormones, and there is enforcement of humane standards of care. For example, from the Canadian Organic standards:

6.1.3 Livestock production is a land-related activity. a) Herbivores shall have access to pasture during the grazing season and access to the open air at other times whenever weather conditions permit:

1. calculated on the basis of dry matter intake, the consumption of grazed forage by ruminants that have reached sexual maturity shall represent a minimum of 30% of the total forage intake;
2. consumption of grazed forage shall rise above 30% during high forage growth periods;
3. a minimum of 0.13 ha (0.33 ac.) per animal unit shall be devoted to grazing. [One animal unit = one cow or one bull, or two calves each 102 to 227 kg (225 to 500 lb), or five calves, each less than 102 kg (225 lb), or four ewes and their lambs, or six does and their kids];

But we live in a capitalist, industrial society. So yes, not all organic farms are equal. Not everyone is actually committed to the principles of the organic movement. Corporate agribusiness obviously is interested in exploiting the organic sector. That doesn’t mean that “organic” is meaningless or that it’s all a scam. Just like Fair Trade, it’s an important signifier but that doesn’t mean it’s immune from abuse or exploitation.

It’s very important that the national standards oversight bodies are protected from interference from agrochemical companies and industrial farming interests who want to see standards relaxed so they can exploit the organic label for commercial gain. You can look at the beginning of this document to see who sits on the organic standards committee in Canada.

And it’s important that as consumers you consider the type of farms you are supporting when buying food. Support local, small scale, organic producers as much as you can. If you can’t get organic, then at least try to get local, small-scale producers. If you can’t do that, then get local organic. If you can’t do that, get supermarket organic. The most important thing is to have, as much as you can, an understanding of where your food is coming from and the methods by which it is being produced.