This is so funny

EDIT:

One recipe it dubbed “aromatic water mix” would create chlorine gas. The bot recommends the recipe as “the perfect nonalcoholic beverage to quench your thirst and refresh your senses”.

"Serve chilled and enjoy the refreshing fragrance,” it says, but does not note that inhaling chlorine gas can cause lung damage or death.

😆 😆

There’s literally no way to know…

Should Elvis really be vilified for liking blues and rock music and playing it himself? How does that hurt anyone?

Like should we be pissed at Django Reihnhardt? Or R.A The Rugged Man? What about Japanese bagpipe players?

Not anyone. You have to be rich.

Solid puns but this is actually a problem. Beehives are quite valuable, like $500 per hive or so to just straight up sell them, or obviously they can also be incorporated into an apiary for long-term production.

Theft of beehives is really not unheard of. Similar to how people steal cows and shit. Beekeepers will sometimes brand or otherwise mark their hives in an attempt to deter such thievery.

Personally I keep my beehives in huge steel cages, though that is primarily to protect them from bears.

I suppose it isn’t linear but I suspect going from massive insane explosion in numbers to an 80% loss in a matter of weeks is pretty unusual. I think that growth was largely driven not by hype but by the automatic linking with other Zuckernedia properties.

I wonder where you think the animals you’re eating got their protein from.

The law doesn’t even say it’s okay. What FaceDeer is referring to is that copyright infringement is a different category of crime than theft, which is defined as pertaining to physical property. It’s a meaningless point because, as you said, this isn’t a courtroom and we aren’t lawyers and the concept of intellectual property theft is well understood.

It’s a thing engineers and lawyers often seem to do, to take the way terms are used in a particular professional jargon and assume that that usage is “the real” usage.

Bit of a non-sequitor, that would be an anecdote and not a study. But yeah I would say that those things would violate social norms. I don’t know if I would agree that conservative people are more likely to violate those norms, which is presumably your point. Take a look at the history of political assassinations in the United States or in Europe, for example. Political violence does not belong uniquely to conservatives.

I think actually pretty much by definition that conservatives are MORE concerned with social norms. That’s kind of one of the primary traits of conservativism. I think a pretty good argument could be made that the Tumpist people you’re referring to do not so much represent a conservative point of view as much as a fascist or ultra-nationalist one, which explains why they will violate certain norms pertaining to peaceful electoral processes, while strongly maintaining other norms, like heterosexual nuclear families or religious observances or certain expectations of gender expression, etc.

I’m sure you’re aware that the manner in which legal bureaucracies define terms is a form of jargon that differentiates legal language from actual language.

They have separate categories of laws to deal with them because physical property is different than intellectual property. The same reason they use a different category of law to deal with identity theft.

I like what you’re saying so I’m not trying to be argumentative, but to be clear copyright protections don’t simply protect those who make a living from their productions. You are protected by them regardless of whether you intend to make any money off your work and that protection is automatic. Just to expand upon what @grue was saying.

What do you mean there is no debate? You’re debating it right now.

Plenty of artists view it as theft when people take their work and use it for their own ends without their permission. Not everyone, sure. But it’s a bit odd to state so emphatically that there is no debate.

That’s your opinion. The contrary opinion would be that copyright infringement is the theft of intellectual property, which many people view as of equal substantiality to physical property.

You can disagree with the concept of intellectual property but clearly there’s an alternative to your point of view that you can’t just dismiss by declaration.

It doesn’t matter how you recreate an image, if you recreate someone else’s work that is a violation of copyright.

Stealing someone’s style is a different matter.

Well said. Copyright is whatever, but the disrespect shown here is remarkable.

Your belief is that respecting elders is unique to Christianity? That’s simply and obviously untrue. Painfully so when you compare the way the dominant Christian culture treats its elders compared with how First Nations cultures treat theirs.

Amazon’s Data Re-Identification Services now free with Amazon Prime!

Indeed.

I’m afraid that even laws aren’t the root cause. I’m pretty concerned about the infrastructure we have allowed to be built around us, and what we will continue to allow to be built going forward. Even if we had strong privacy laws, laws are fickle things. The only thing separating us from full on Orwellian dystopia is some bad policy changes, the technology is already in place and we bought it on purpose.

respect for elders isn’t really a value among young Americans

I’m sure it’s valued more or less across different sectors of the young American population, but yeah I think it’s pretty widely recognized that our culture doesn’t really treat our elders well. And we should feel ashamed about that.

we know that the idea that old people are inherently wise is a farce

Nobody is inherently anything, but everything is the way it is for a reason. There’s a reason why respect for one’s elders is a nearly universal maxim, to the extent that it extends beyond our species, and to disregard that ancient principle is to invite disaster. Old people aren’t the problem.

You’ve got studies suggesting that conservatives are less accepting of social norms?