Did you actually read my comment […]?
Yes, which is how I know that your logic didn’t make sense.
Your faulty logic didn’t upset me nearly as much as it upset you. You interpreted someone saying “it’s not common” as telling you that it never happened, and seemed to feel entitled to an explanation.
Seriously though, I don’t know why you think I’d be upset, lol
It’s the norm
It’s not the norm
Why are you saying it’s never?
Your comment doesn’t make logical sense
I feel like this is another example of a topic title with a different question than the body.
I interpreted the title ask asking something like whether “AI slop” is good enough. Or asking if “AI slop” is where the technology peaks. (As in, is AI slop enough, or can we do more with AI models?)
Thank you for the correction!
How about “hang up the phone”? “Roll down the window”?
EDIT: Some or all of this may be wrong
People can block to “get the last word in” to make it seem like the blockee had no counter-argument and the blocker decisively won.
To me, that’s the annoying bit.
It also sometimes makes Lemmy seem “broken”, if there are missing replies or discussions you can’t see or things you can’t reply to
I got into an “argument” with what was probably an AI bot with Uber.
It seemed to give me a partial refund, but it actually gave me a full refund. I kept saying “I want the full refund”, and it kept saying “I can only give you this partial refund, and I won’t explain why”.
It turns out, it was doing the math wrong. It kept saying “After the refund, your new total is [higher than what it’s supposed to be]”. But the actual refund was accurate, which I didn’t notice at first.
I think it may have been including the tip I added into the price for the fare, or something.
Either way, a human would’ve been like “Oh yes that includes your tip as well”, or “I’m telling you the total of all your charges”, but the AI agent only had canned lines and “sorry, I can’t help you because we already adjusted your fare.”
You’re right; I just don’t think the law goes far enough
If you wrap all your questions in that kind of stuff, I can see why you don’t always get favourable responses.
The short answer is because it’s healthcare to treat a recognized medical condition. I believe that’s predominantly or solely gender dysphoria.
Wikipedia is generally a good place to get an understanding of you are genuinely interested in learning the answers to those questions. Wikipedia isn’t a trans-rights site or anything, and is probably the closest we can get to neutral without going into peer-reviewed scientific papers (and needing to have the academic background to understand what we’re reading there).
I’m not trans, and I haven’t researched this stuff, so I’m not the best source for this information. But I’m happy to discuss with anyone who has questions that are in good faith. There are a lot of difficult questions, and understanding it requires shifting paradigms we’ve had since we were children. It’s not easy.
OP is saying they can buy these products, but they can’t receive it for medical purposes.
The answer is that these products don’t actually have testosterone, I think
This is my problem with American products. The standards are too low! Sugar is replaced with corn. The cream in ice cream is replaced with oil. Chocolate is replaced with unrelated fats. And it’s all legally allowed to be sold as what they’re a facsimile of!
At best, there are names like “chocolatey”. Bullshit.
My least favourite alternative that Nestle loves is just leaving what it is off the package. So here in Canada, it doesn’t say ice cream. It doesn’t say anything unless you look for the fine print.
But it’s in an ice cream carton sitting a metre away from real ice cream. This is false marketing by omission. If I wrote the laws, this would be illegal.
That can also be an age thing. Sweet things can taste more overly sweet as an adult, especially if you’ve been removing sweet things from other parts of your life.
You’re still blaming china? For revealing the reality of genocide?
Only ones that they aren’t conducting, though
I can’t say that I’ve observed the same thing as you, but regardless, I don’t think that’s attributable to either president in either case.
There’s an edit icon on that post…
And pointing out edits is good internet etiquette. Since edits don’t change replies, someone could edit their comment and make all the replies seem unrelated etc.
Is that different since Trump’s presidency?
There’s definitely a lot more to it, but research tends to show that hate is learned, not innate. Making the spreading of this kind of bigotry illegal won’t make it disappear, but it will make it harder to platform. And without a platform, it becomes harder to spread. Not impossible. But harder.
They should’ve just made the topic more obvious. I don’t have a problem if people want to have a circlejerk around hating AI, even in this community, but make it clear that’s what it is.
“Should we be calling it something worse than “AI slop”?”
Then everybody who’s into that kind of fun will join, and anybody who’s not interested can move on, lol