I’m hesitant to click on a link and give traffic to an article written to sell me a popsci book about something well know to the scientific community for a while, but if anyone does take the bait, please let me know if there’s anything novel here other than a “quirky” anecdote about someone lying to their intimate partner so they feel sick.
Do you know the reason taking hot showers is part of the criteria?
Yea, I think it’s extremely sad that women’s bodies are essentially used as a training ground for men’s understanding of consent, and therefore woman have to deal with the consequences of any misunderstandings the men may have. It’s also sad that a women’s inability to advocate for themself may mean a man legitimately doesn’t understand the harm he’s causing as he’s causing it. And vice versa of course.
One of the reasons I am so verbal about enthusiastic consent is because that requires both parties to understand what is needed of them. It’s not just about knowing how to recognize consent, but also how to provide consent. I appreciate the nuance you added to the conversation. Sometimes the internet can be hit or miss about these things.
This is probably not the place to share this, but to your point here’s a personal story about that:
I went on a date with a guy who was a friend of a friend and I’d known casually for a while. We were at his place and hanging out. He tries to do something I didn’t want and I didn’t want to ruin the mood so I casually move away. He tries again and I verbally very seriously say that I don’t want that. He tries again a bit later and I end up leaving. He legitimately has no idea what he did wrong. He calls and texts an apology. He’s a nice guy otherwise. He asks if we can chat about it because he’s confused and concerned. We do. He grew up very sheltered and literally didn’t understand that no means no. I know that sounds idiotic to anyone with a normal upbringing, but it was the case. We have an extended conversation about enthusiastic consent. He apologizes again and asks if I would feel comfortable going out again at any point. We do and he acted exactly as one would hope. We dated for years with no issues afterwards. I’m sure someone will probably be thinking “he was manipulating you” or “he was worried about his reputation”, but in reality he just never had someone talk to him about consent and bought into the “no means yes” bs that was popular in media when he was growing up.
If I didn’t know him as well as I did, or if I was someone else, it’s possible I would have been too concerned to speak up about it and he would go on never knowing that what he did was wrong. This sign would probably legitimately have helped him.
I think this is a part of why a lot of SA goes unreported. No one want to report their boyfriend because of what in a non sexual circumstance might be called a misunderstanding. If I say I don’t want dessert and my BF orders me dessert anyway, I can just not eat it. That’s not the case when it comes to sexual contact and people seem to struggle with that.
Checked the profile after initially commenting and yep. The post also breaks community rules.
Looks like It is AI slop
That’s a valid opinion to have, but currently they have a legal obligation to do so to a certain extent, as explained in the article. It does not seem like the family was asking them to do anything other than what they are currently legally required to. They weren’t asking them to change his diapers or sponge bathe him, just accompany him through the airport.
The airline is required to accommodate passengers that need to be escorted. If they were unable to do so for whatever reason, someone needed to be notified. If you have to escort someone and for whatever reason have an emergency and cannot do it, you need to find someone who can or at least notify the expectant family. The article says he was not provided any assistance at all though, so that is moot regardless. Based on the article they didn’t even try to help him. I don’t know why people are projecting a situation that didn’t happen when the article alleges something else.
Unfortunately, dementia isn’t a consistent thing. You can have episodes that seem extreme despite them being infrequent, or potentially only happening under certain conditions. Regardless, the airline said they were going to assist him. They did not. He had family waiting to receive him at the airport. There was apparently no assistance provided at all or attempt to notify his family of that. He didn’t somehow overpower someone and escape, they just failed to provide promised and legally required assistance.
In the article it explains that they informed Spirit ahead of time that he would need to be escorted and they confirmed he would be.
I don’t know why people bother to comment their opinions without reading the article. Especially to just be on the side of corporations. It’s like that McDonalds hot coffee situation. If anyone bothered to actually read the article they would understand what’s actually happening.
If you don’t think he should’ve been flying, then it’s still spirits fault for telling people he would be provided assistance that he was not, which is something that they’re required to do anyway, as stated in the article.
Yea, I was mostly joking. It’s also a bunch of children who are not well known for understanding the intricacies of social systems. They are also fictional, so there’s that. I do appreciate you adding that context, but I figured I’d explicitly state I was joking in case someone assumed I was actually blaming fake children for their own misfortune. I just thought it was funny because they’re not even taking revenge on people who would have wronged them. It’d be one thing to trick people who decide to ignore them into drowning, but they’re tricking people who decide to help. It’s like the opposite of revenge. It’s more like “if I can’t be saved no one can be”, which is admittedly a very childlike attitude.
Did none of them stop to think that killing the people that try to help trapped children might be contributing to the epidemic of people being unwilling to help trapped children?
No good deed, amirite?
“I think for me, you know, two of the wins might be immigration and maybe homeland security,” he said. “But a big loss for him is the economy, and inflation, and the cost of living, which has been a common theme here across Republicans and Democrats.”
Really wish they would stop pretending. Anyone who sees this administration’s approach to immigration as a “win” needs to be helped in a way I cannot articulate.
I know of Hannah Fry from a few YouTube math channels and she is objectively very good at math, which I took to mean very intelligent. I do not know why people continue to try this same exact thing though. There are plenty of already existing articles with the same findings. Maybe if a new model came out that was touted as revolutionary or something, but in the meantime this just strikes me as people who think they’re special and know something that the other people who did this kind of experiment didn’t. In truth, it’s luck of the draw and it’s possible it had succeeded instead of failed. In that case would they have triumphantly written the exact opposite article? The whole thing seems dumb and a waste of money and compute, while actually increasing demand. The article ends with them hyping up AI anyways. This is unlikely to dissuade anyone from using AI and more likely to serve as evidence akin to “see! It’s the tech of the future”.
This is an AI channel. I’m not sure if you’re innocently sharing or trying to build organic interactions for it, but please at least be clear it’s AI. The videos are not appropriately tagged as such.
This is an AI channel. I’m not sure if you’re innocently sharing or trying to build organic interactions for it, but please at least be clear it’s AI. The videos are not appropriately tagged as such.
This is an AI channel. I’m not sure if you’re innocently sharing or trying to build organic interactions for it, but please at least be clear it’s AI. The videos are not appropriately tagged as such.
This wasn’t journalism.
This does not happen all the time with journalism.
A correction doesn’t fix this. Unlike with actual journalism, the problem is with the AI and not with a specific output.
The original Bloomberg article is quite informative.
California was the only state in Bloomberg’s review that did not use advertising trackers, having removed them last year after being informed of the security risk by nonprofit news organizations CalMatters and The Markup. A separate Markup analysis of 19 state sites last year also flagged data exposures in several states that later changed some of their settings.
According to Edwards, one reason so many websites continue to share sensitive user data is that website operators deploy tracking tools without fully understanding how they work. “The onus is on them to do it safely,” he said. “You can’t protect something that you don’t understand.”
If anyone has looked into Google ads at all, the first thing they try to get you to do is install a bunch of trackers on your website. In order to do that you have to check a box that says you have a privacy policy which discloses certain information. If you try to tell them you do not have that and do not want to do tracking they will outright lie about what they are getting you to do. They tell you to just check the box and that it doesn’t matter and then will tell you that it doesn’t track anything. One would hope that the people doing these sites for the government would know better, but they may also just not care. They may just be using a standard SEO suite and no one bothered to mention that maybe they shouldn’t on either the government side or the company side.
Interesting. Thank you for taking the time to reply!