Your argument seems more against religion (and inferrably monogamy) than it does marriage itself. Especially if “civil union” is your alternative.
I don’t see what the benefit would be to just go through the family law and replace the term “marriage” with “civil union”.
What exactly do you think the meaningful difference is between duty and obligation?
If the law says that teachers have a obligation to report the injuries of chicken to the nurse, and that hall monitors have a duty to report the injuries of chicken to the nurse, I would expect both to be dismissable and potentially subject to a litigious parent.
The first smell test for any survey is how would they possibly control for the non-response rate?
Putting out a billboard to ask something like “what’s kind of makeup should a cracked egg try first” will get a bunch of recommendations and advertisment copy. But it wouldn’t tell you much about how many males wearing makeup are trans, enby, drag, or just wearing a costume. And noting at all about how many trans girls even try makeup at all.
“Tell me your responses about how much HRT sucks” would, similarly, get you a dataset that’s highly distorted.
I’m very relieved to hear it was only water and apple cider vinegar. “Unknown liquid sprayed by an attacker” is just short of actually wounding someone when it comes to anxiety induced.
MN should throw the book at him. And at anyone who helped him do it.
No matter how complex or inefficient the orphan grinding machine, if you buy something second-hand and the person you bought it from buys a replacement with your proceeds, you are contributing to that sale and thereby funding the orphan grinding machine.
An actual AI would be a person,.capable of doing any task that can be done remotely. The current crop of pseudo-AIs aren’t, and so cannot really replace that many jobs.
(What they are mostly doing is serving as a scapegoat for businesses who want to drop inefficient employees – those whose revenue::wage ratio is not high enough. I guess layoffs play better on wall street when you can blame AI for them and pretend your company isn’t shedding capacity.)
One place LLMs are potentially very useful is in replacing the need for “extra bodies.”. A programmer or lawyer or doctor might want a junior or paralegal to draft some work or review some file to save their time, but the professional still needs to review it.
Fortunately or unfortunately, “play this game and find as many bugs as you can” is exactly that sort of extra-body work. It would be dumb to fire all 10 of the team’s testers, but letting go 5 of them and supplanting the balance with LLMs might wind up with a better or cheaper product.
deleted by creator
I don’t use WhatsApp, because I’m a homebody and none of the ten people I want to talk to use it. (Plus,.meta. Ugh.)
But the test for “is their encryption good enough to keep them from reading your messages” really needs to be “can you trivially lock yourself out of sent messages”.
If it’s easy for you to set up a new device and chat with your existing contacts without manually entering a code, then it’ll be equally easy for them to set up a fake device pretending to be you and read all of the same things.
While I don’t buy a lot of PC games, I did pick up Stellaris on GOG.
The weird second-class status I get when it comes to betas and mods is enough for anyone to scream. Especially since if I wanted to move to steam, I’d have to re-buy every add-on I want to play.
Add-on lock-in really is a thing. Even if it may be as much a lazy publisher as it is a greedy storefront.
1: the quote is from the declaration of independence, not the US Constitution that was written 13 years later after the initial weak federal government was found to be too weak.
2: 11 of the ratified amendments were essentially part of the bargain to get said Constitution passed. And absent the civil war amendments, none of the subsequent amendments were passed due to violence. (Maybe you’re thinking of the VRA?)
3: that SCOTUS has devolved into a creative writing exercise in “how can we pretend the Constitution doesn’t say what it says”, apparently Jefferson was right and enumerated rights were a mistake. (Given the benefit of hindsight, an equally difficult process for removing rights recognized by Congress or SCOTUS would have been better.)
On occasion those “positive side effects” become the primary effect the drug is prescribed for.
Most famously, Viagra was not created to be a male sexual aid.
OP should make friends with a lawyer in their country and find out the cost to ask simple questions.
Having a family lawyer is a good thing, unless you like being at the mercy of your landlord’s whins.
A license can impose any legal conditions as part of the bargain. If I let you come into my home, I can insist that you take off your shoes and never say “Trump”. I might even be able to hire a cleaning service, and require them to adhere to those same rules if they want to get paid.
This same condition could include not saying the T word on the public sidewalk near my house. And those who want to visit me or get paid to clean my house would likely follow it. But what I cant do is impose my ban on pedestrians who just walk down the street, since they already have a right to do that.
So, yes licenses that include terms about not using or including certain color schemes are generally enforceable. But they wont necessarily stop the usage of that color scheme by people who don’t have some other consideration to bind them to the license.
(More specifics would require more specifics. Are they claiming trademark, patent, or copyright on the color scheme? In what country? Against who?)
Yes. Having any one person 'in charge" who is not an immortal with superhuman morality and judgement will eventually lead to tyrannical suffering or the waste of a bloody civil war.
Lemmy (and piefed) is a great example of human societies done correctly. There are people who run things, and while they can establish whatever rules they want for the parts they run, everyone else is free to either ask for a change or go elsewhere.
For bad actions, options range from immediate negative feedback (downvote) and.corrective speech (public comment or private message), to negative consequences from those in power (ban account from instance), which can ultimately rise to community separation (de-federation). Heck, even the underlying software can be forked or replaced.
Of course, the stakes here are essentially trivial. Which means the consequences are too, but also we all have less incentive for bad action than in the real world where poverty and death are a possibility from bad action.
Putting the mob in charge is the least-bad form of government humans have ever conceived of.
Experts can and do establish reputations to persuade the masses or those chosen by the masses.
When we try putting the experts in charge directly, they invariably become corrupt and stop being as skilled.
There is a reason why America’s founding fathers put a wall between church and state. Not because they thought religion was bad, but because they learned from history that when you give a topic-expert political control they stop being good at either function.
The quote you need to burn into whatever part of your brain that thought this up is as follows:
War is how God teaches Americans geography.
Censorship is suspect, not inherently bad.
Freedom of viewpoint expression is a key part of democracy and modern society. But it’s not an absolute right of unfettered communication, since that would lead to no recourse when a racist troll projects a deep fake of you raping small children on the side of your house.
Being able to sue someone for libel is censorship. Property rights allowing you to control what happens on your house are censorship. And, yes, the government arresting that hypothetical racist troll for the production of child pornography is also censorship.
Of course, we could just define censorship as “suppression of protected speech” or something similar, but that just hides the game and helps folk who actually want to censor political ideas they don’t like get away with it.
By this standard the US civil war began no later than 1787, when the 3/5th and grand compromises.were necessary to get both factions to agree to the new constitution.
There’s a reason why we don’t call the “three score and thirteen” years between the conference in Philadelphia and the attack on fort Sumter a “war”.
So you want to remove all of the various privileges and duties bundled together as legal marriage, save for the ones that people manually enter into. I think that’s a terrible idea.
People already have freedom to contract. With a competent lawyer you can already co-parent with one adult, give another your medical power of attorney, and specify the disbersment.of property after you pass in a relatively tax-efficient manner. Even if you’re married to someone and want those other adults to all be someone other than your spouse.
If we did what you suggest and remove the underlying default bundle of agreements we call marriage, we would dramatically increase the cost of divorce and the rate of economic spousal abuse. All someone would have to do to get out of a “marriage” absent its original terms would be to burn the copies of their agreement, and even the simplest separations would be subject to adversarial litigation.
I think there’s some wide latitude to modify that default bundle and remove some of its limitations and presumptions. (Especially when it comes to taxation and social welfare, where a UBI + ~40% flat tax is better in nearly every way). But humans do pair-bond, and it seems to make much more sense to argue for the actual changes you want rather than insisting that we wholly disregard the atomic unit of human civilization.