She was burned alive because she played with matches.

Technically, he is a terrorist, since he targeted a civilian for political or ideological reasons. Doesn’t change the fact that his victim was absolute scum.

Exactly, running the universe is hard work.

The most beneficial effect the murder had was that it got people talking about how much they hate the American health insurance system.

Even more obvious in the book, where its mentioned that even the commander can’t afford to eat meat whenever he wants.

You can’t go and kill the guy at a point where you know he has events in his yet. (A person’s “yet” is what is known of their personal future). You have to attack him at a point where you he doesn’t have any events in his yet that you know about. This also means no killing Hitler before April 30th 1945.

Well, this line of thinking is what got me doing research on whether cats can be fed a vegan diet.

Vegan cats is such a weird hill to die on for vegans. Mostly, because it isn’t a hill. Hills give you tactical advantage. The position with the vegan cats is basically indefensible. I can’t say for sure that it’s impossible to feed cats a vegan diet that’s healthy for them.

I’ve googled ‘vegan cats’ and the first thing I found was an article from the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/sep/13/cats-may-get-health-benefits-from-vegan-diet-study-suggests. However, a problem I have with the article, and the study linked (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0284132) is that the methodology was for the pet owners to report the cats health status. I feel that this doesn’t produce a reliable result. The most important factor is that it’s not a controlled environment. The cats may be allowed outside, which means that they would supplement their diet through hunting. My standard for evidence is a study were the cats are fed a vegan diet in a controlled setting.

The second artice found (https://theconversation.com/is-it-really-safe-to-feed-your-cat-a-vegan-diet-213356) Also mentions the same study, which doesn’t meet my standard of evidence. (Cats are fed a vegan diet in a controlled setting where they can’t supplement their diet)

The third result (https://www.bluecross.org.uk/advice/cat/food-and-weight/can-cats-be-vegan) Says that cats can’t be vegan, but then says that some vegan cat foods do exist. No article link as to the veracity of claims.

The fourth result, from the university of Winchester, refers to the aforementioned study (https://www.winchester.ac.uk/news-and-events/press-centre/media-articles/vegan-diet-healthier-for-cats-than-meat-according-to-new-survey.php).

The fifth result, a site called Vegan Outreach (https://veganoutreach.org/vegan-diets-cats/) seems to provide a nuanced take, I skimmed the article, and their conclusion says that more research is needed. They mention another study which tested two vegan diets for cats found them lacking in key nutrients.

Sixth result is the study most of these articles refer to (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0284132).

Seventh is an article by PETA. I don’t consider these guys trustworthy.

Anyway, those are basically research notes from a short googling session.

It used to be worse during the gilded age, and people still managed to unionize then.

Assuming the finance a pizza bit is true, it’s a sign that the American economy is on the brink of a deflationary spiral. Debt is being created, but at some point, it will not be paid back in sufficient amounts, and then the capital to create more debt will dry up, resulting in the amount of money in the economy drying up as well. Businesses will be forced to lower prices and scale back operations, which will result in rising unemployment. Which in turn will result in even less money in the economy, perpetuating the circle.

I’m taking an utilitarian approach. Suffering should be avoided, and happiness maximized. Bringing another being into existence guarantees suffering, with a chance of creating happiness. That is not a gamble you should take on behalf of another being.

Another note on the original post, their argument could also be used to justify going through the NICU and killing every newborn. So there’s a clear ‘pro life’ bias going on here, with acts that bring more life being seen as good, regardless of consent. Wouldn’t a more reasoned approach be to maintain, keep those who are alive, alive, and those not yet existing, unexisting? Forcing a being across the border is bad, regardless of direction.

Suffering is inherent to the human condition. Is it okay to undertake actions that cause people suffering?

What previous status quo are antinatalists trying to return to? “Reactionary” is just the left wing equivalent of “woke”.

The problem I have with your argument is that it could easily be used to justify rape. A person who is incapable of giving consent is also incapable of requesting things, so does that make it okay to just assume consent?

That’s just misanthropy.

Just as I was about to give up, it somehow worked: https://imgchest.com/p/9p4ne9m9m4n I didn’t really do anything different this time around, so no idea why it didn’t work at first.

It’s been about a year since I saw the probabilities. I took another look at it just now, and while I can find the toggle in the settings, I can’t find the context menu where the probabilities are shown.

I once ran an LLM locally using Kobold AI. Said thing has an option to show the alternative tokens for each token it puts out, and what their probably for being chosen was. Seeing this shattered the illusion that these things are really intelligent for me. There’s at least one more thing we need to figure out before we can build an AI that is actually intelligent.

It’s cool what statistics can do, though.

Plagiarism is disguising another person’s work as your own. Assuming the AI generated image is labeled as such, no plagiarism is occurring.