The worm. If you find one, it’s not gin.

When asked what their solutions are, responder… <checks notes> got defensive and lashed out at a straw man instead of just answering the question. Then makes vague hand-waving gestures at irrelevant tangents.

So far, I’m hearing nothing that’s better than the one I offered - let the food scientists sort this out. They actually know what they’re talking about.

This is the problem with current discourse. When the only acceptable-to-you solution requires massive structural changes to the fundamental building blocks of society, you aren’t living in the real world. Realistic solutions start from where we are and take incremental steps. If you can’t come up with a better way to define this problem to the point that you resort to irrationality and fairy tales, that’s a you problem.

Nobody said bans were correct. But just because they aren’t right doesn’t make your ludicrous opinions any better. Yes, we’d all love shorter work weeks. Let’s see you come up with a realistic plan to actually implement that in your own lifetime. In this geopolitical climate. Good fucking luck, space cadet.

Targeting “ultra-processed foods” is a stupid way to accomplish that.

Then let’s hear your genius, sure-fire, guaranteed-to-work idea that’s been built on high-quality research and rigorous data collection methodology.

You clearly don’t know how ridiculously stupid the entire food labeling regulations process is. All because CEOs refuse to do reasonable, rational things that are better for human beings than their stock price.

The problem here isn’t the regulations. The problem is the failure to recognize that every regulation is written in somebody’s blood. So, how many people is the “right” number of people who need to die of preventable causes before we conclusively say “maximizing addictive properties in food” is no longer a business practice we’re willing to accept as a nation? Do 100 people need to die? Thousands? Do you need to see millions of dead bodies piled up end-over-end like cord wood before you recognize that, gosh golly gee, maybe we should listen to scientific opinions over corporatist scumbag opinions?

Learn about how the human body processes carbohydrates. Then learn about what a truly “normal” amount of carbohydrates for a human to consume on a daily, weekly, annual basis is. Finally, compare that amount of “normal” carbs to the amount in a single bowl of Cheerios. Subtract the dietary fiber involved if you need precision. But the basic comparison is so obviously skewed that the dietary fiber part of the calculation is barely more than a rounding error.

Cheerios don’t need “banning” for any of the reasons we prohibit or control the sale of truly hazardous or life-threatening materials. Nobody said that is what is needed. Overconsumption of carb-heavy foods like Cheerios are bad for our health on a time scale measured in years or decades. Drinking drano is bad for your health on a time scale measured in seconds. Don’t get it twisted. Nobody’s treating eating cheerios like drinking drano. Insinuating such a thing is happening is simply incorrect and not a valid argument.

Humans need to eat more green things and eat less carbs. We need companies that serve human needs to truly serve the real human needs, not lie about the exploitable bugs in human cognition, pretend they’re “needs”, and try to say there’s nothing wrong with encouraging people to over-consume to the point of morbid obesity just to pump the shareholders’ stocks a few cents higher.

That’s the basic message. Humanity is more important than profit margins.

You ever ask her why she’s suddenly not as interested in satanic pedo sex cults run by elites now that she knows she helped get one elected as President?

Spoken like someone who doesn’t understand neuroscience.

A whole lot of people waste their entire lives bitching about what should not be, never lifting a finger to do anything about it, but yet expecting other people to undertake the labor that you will not do yourself.

Thank you for announcing that you do not understand what was said.

Nobody said it had to be the same person doing all of it. You talk of social welfare nets like centrally mandated universal basic income, but you can’t fathom a volunteerist grassroots community-driven effort. Weird how you want your society to be some bizarre faceless bureaucracy that gives you whatever you want like some magic vending machine.

But, if you’re not going to be the one spending your time articulating other people’s value, why is that a task that’s important enough for someone else to do? If not you, then why would anyone else?

That’s the problem with most people’s utopian ideology. Most of it involves requiring things of some magical “others”. These things aren’t ever something that you’re willing to give up any of your own time to do solely for someone else’s benefit. The guy bitching about how someone should do something about all the litter in the street is somehow never the one to bend his own fat ass over to pick any of it up.

Funny how that works.

This is why America is in the situation it’s in. Everyone wants someone else to solve their problems for them instead of showing up to participate more than one day every fourth November.

Yes, but the key detail is governance. There’s specific molecules that, without them, there is no attention to be sought. Paying attention or “having willpower” is causally linked to these specific compounds being present in the meat.

Much of “free will” boils down to regulation of these neurotransmitters.

The problem is more definitional than anything else.

The basic proposition is to do valuable work, as others define value, in exchange for whatever you consider equivalent compensation.

If others don’t see value in alternative ways of operating, you can help define it for them. Map any activity to either money made, money saved, or time saved, or maintenance avoided/automated and just watch how the tone of those “stick to your job description” conversations change.

As soon as you learn to put what matters to you in terms that matter to others, this problem is a whole lot easier to solve.

Attention is a function of dopamine & serotonin production over time.

Almost everything about being human reduces down to a handful of neurotransmitters.

There is now just a large gap between what "profesional’ (read: corporate) art is and what is relegated to “hobbyists”.

In the corporate world, time-to-deliver matters. It matters that creating a logo, an ad, or a t-shirt design can be made faster with AI.

However, AI isn’t likely to be used very widely in what people consider “fine art”. Fine art is more about something intangible that AI can’t really assist with.

What current image generation models can do is reproduce shapes, forms and color mixes that are similar to what they’ve seen before. For the high-volume, high throughput world of corporate art, AI image generation is reducing the cost of goods down to something barely above the cost of electricity. For the fine art world, it means the barrier to entry is a bit steeper and a whole lot fewer people will be capable of spending the time creating it.

AI is making some creative jobs into something akin to blacksmithing or horse-based transportation is today. Making things with older technologies still exists, even though most of modern society has moved on. But it’s something that only a handful of people can do professionally anymore. For most people, it’s a hobby or a fun tourist attraction.

I’ve seen them play live. They’re great when you want upbeat metal. :D

Translation: “Please help us justify our choices to our board. They want to know why we YOLO’d billions into making our users hate us.”

If you think Russia is the beneficiary here, you aren’t paying close enough attention to China.

Watch Jurrasic Park instead. So you can be reminded that just because you can doesn’t mean you should.

Hilarious.

I’m betting he learned AOJ in this context means “Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy” - the standard three-prong test used in justifiable homicide cases. Why is justifiable homicide relevant here? Because firearms are LETHAL weapons in the court’s eyes. There is no defense for “I aimed for the leg and tried to disable but oopsie doopsie I hit the femoral artery and they bled out on the street right in front of me.” Or, worse, “I aimed for the perp’s leg, missed, and the bullet traveled through the walls of your house, then through the walls of the house across the street and into a child’s bedroom, killing an uninvolved child.”

If the situation can’t clear the AOJ test, you’re going to prison for manslaughter, best case. Because firearms are LETHAL weapons.

If you’re going to use one, use it with the understanding that you are deploying lethal force. The circumstances need to warrant an escalation to lethal force. And know how to shoot. Get training. Practice. Real life ain’t like the movies. Just look up the number of hours of range time Keanu put in to prep for the Wick movies.

I’m just a user of the software, not the developer. You’d need to ask them. :)

This is even better: https://github.com/AntiMicroX/antimicrox