Firefox has burned enough goodwill with me over the years. Them putting ads in the URL bar was the last straw and I switched to LibreWolf. Haven't looked back since, its basically a drop in replacement and works with all my previous container/add on workflows. May need to mess with fonts, but that's it.
Ads in the URL bar? I have never seen anything like that and I've been using Firefox as my standard browser since before it reached v1.0. What sort of ads, where did you see them?
So i wonder why he people of the city would act the same way as a group being invaded by a hostile force? Just like the Middle east its the people being invaded, they are the problem, not the invaders.
It's more like Minneapolis has been "chosen" as the battle point by people opposed to Trump in every step. It's the same person leading deportations as under Obama, they deport less than Obama did, yet they have been demonized almost immediately after the Trump administration took over. Why?
During the Obama administration, state and local LEO worked with ICE to deport. Now they are directed not to. Without that protection and cooperation from local officers, it becomes significantly harder and more dangerous to execute these operations. So they put masks on because the local agitators are doxxing them, threatening their families, and making life unsafe for the agents.
So now we have this lack of cooperation from local government that creates unsafe and dangerous operating conditions for ICE. What are they supposed to do? Not enforce the law because the local government says no? We already fought a war about Federal power versus state power. Heck, Obama (whom i voted for 2x) sued Arizona (Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387) over supremacy of the Federal Government with respect to immigration.
There would be no problems if Minneapolis and Minnesota leadership reacted the way other cities like Memphis did. Instead they've explicitly, or tacitly, endorsed this escalating resistance movement. I can't imagine ever putting my hands on a LEO and expecting it to go well, yet they do it freely. Officers are only human, and day-in day-out of this, combined with very real actionable threats against your life, and family life are only going to create more tensions and more mistakes.
This is no invasion hostile force, this is a chosen focal point to challenge the will and ability of this administration to enforce the democratically made laws.
Yes because the US was famously the good guy in its forays into the middle east.
I love this example because it demonstrates like 5 different levels of ignorance about American politics and foreign relations, plus a good helping of propaganda.
You're projecting a values claim on the American wars in the middle east on me that I didn't make. It's pretty clear that the ME wars were all around bad and evil.
It doesn't change the organization and tactics used to identify targets are the same methods and strategies used by insurgent groups to select targets and attack. AQI was very sophisticated for the technology they had. Their warriors were brave, cunning, and true believers with efficacious systems for what was available to them.
Twenty years of that, plus the rest of the middle east has now made it particularity common knowledge how to run insurgency cells worldwide. This combined with American expertise brought back and with people legally aiding these groups in setting up their C2 structures with what is effective and what works is no surprise.
This investigation should be no surprise to anyone. They use these techniques because they work. They are so effective at target acquisition, monitoring, and selective engagement that if they flipped from their current tactics to more violent ones it would be a large casualty event.
This is a lost cause. The person you're replying to does nothing but make comments about how evil Republicans are. Hence why your comment will be lost on them and mentioning things like Clinton making the first attempt at internet censorship, or Obama supressing whistleblowers, tracking journalists, or him legalizing propaganda by intelligence agencies will be completely ignored.
No idea why they'd be on hackernews when they just sound like a run of the mill reddit bot.
Good to know doxxing is okay so long as it's against someone you don't like because they insulted a celebrity people have an unhealthy attachment to.
Hard to see how this isn't "rules for thee but not for me" just applied to an act that ruins people's lives. But hey, they typed in a sentence or two into a chat prompt and posted the resulting image, they must deserve it.
Until legal systems fully catch up with the ramifications of such immoral actions, social pressures— such as doxing— is totally acceptable to reduce the engagement of such disgusting behaviors becoming mainstream.
Normal, respectable, people would never engage in such behavior and those who choose to do so should feel the full force of social pressures to lesson the chance of others following suit.
Your defense— of such disgusting behavior— suggests that you are implicitly ok with sexual assault, rape, or general degradation of women. You should seek help with your view and I hope the women in your life know they are in danger.
Drawing a line from posting an AI generated image to being okay with rape is psychotic and certainly not the moral high ground you think it is. Nor is defending doxxing because of an unhealthy attachment with a celebrity who you feel insulted personally on their behalf.
Print out this exchange and show it to the women in your life (if there are any), then let everyone here know their response. Your abhorrent behavior is only protected by the anonymity of the web. Seek help.
You keep attacking me thinking I'm a) a man and b) am the the "boogy" kind of man that fits the target of all this overeactive nonsense where having arguments about free speech somehow brings up rape. Hence the word "psychotic" not feeling out of place.
But just as well, while we're making unfounded assumptions: you should show this exchange to the only woman in your life. You could tweet it to her and show her how you so valiently defended her honor and solidified how important you are to her. Of course she would never see it and never care because that's how parasocial relationships work. No amount of hystrionics and virtue signaling will ever get her attention or her validation or the supplanted parental love that arguments like this suggest you desperately need.
Lol you know at times like this I have to remember the words of my great great grandmother: "Never argue with a swiftie, because they're fucking insane and too dumb to know it"
I can kinda see both sides here. I definitely wouldn’t want people using AI to maliciously depict me beside Trump etc. However, I also don’t think people should be punished for thoughts or art, be it human or AI.
My own solution is to simply not appear online but I understand that’s not possible for celebrities.
How would you propose we solve the problem of AI generated desecration, if it even is a problem?
Does everything need to be boiled down to a consent argument now? When an artist uses his imagination to make a political cartoon about a senator is that a violation of the senators consent? Is this any different than an artist depicting a person in a way they see fit?
Your comment would suggest any use of imagination to make a thing that doesn't get written approval by all parties even thought of is also a consent issue: if you fantasize about a crush you are violating them, and any type of parody whatsoever is too.
>Sit this one out. It's not a discussion for you.
While being incredibly condescending, you neglected to ask for consent to think about this person's ability to participate in the conversation, maybe this isn't a discussion for you either.
If you can't distinguish between using a public figure's likeness for a political cartoon vs. AI porn (or between a private fantasy and a public post), then maybe you should sit this one out too.
Revenge porn is bad. Imaginary revenge porn is just as bad.
It's quite alarmist to suggest altered images the most popular woman in the world are classified as "revenge porn."
People in popular culture have been used by artists to their liking since the beginning of art. Don't compare this to someone posting naked pictures of an ex who has a completely private life and doesn't spend their entire being trying to be in front of every camera possible, usually in outfits that make it quite easy for the imagination to extrapolate into the pornographic.
So other commenters have a direction to debate you in.
My response, to both:
good luck putting this cat back in the bag.
Whatever harm these people are doing, they'll continue to do it "in private"; be aware of the "new normal" and adjust accordingly seems like the only pragmatic approach.
It's literally just art in bad taste.
That's not a new experience for most people on the Internet.
Also, instead of rushing around to change the goalposts (from the Swift story), why didn't you reply to any of the statements or questions I put forward?
If you're only here to pontificate, not curiously discuss your position, you're gonna have a bad time.
I've had very good luck interviewing but when I was looking for jobs in college I bombed not necessarily from the technical portion but from the soft skills.
Was interviewing at a super friendly seeming company that happened to also do a ton of government and security work. They asked me how I've dealt with someone on a team I didn't work well with and I mentioned someone from a senior project who wasn't pulling their weights. I basically said pulled up his slack and moved on but then "destroyed him during reviews." I didn't realize how much of a faux pas this was for this type of interview and was told I didn't get the job because of issues working with others.
Having conducted hundreds of interviews now I realize the error of my ways but I still maintain writing a bad review of someone is not that bad when compared to the other unhealthy ways to handle it.
In the end I lucked out because that would have put me in the world of high clearance government worked that I've grown to hate these days, they may have been able to Stockholm syndrome me into liking that kind of work.
