There is, or at least was, at least one place catering to your friend’s tastes: https://urnotalone.com/male-maids-serve-it-up-at-japans-first-cross-dressing-maid-cafe/
Edit: More recent article: https://www.tokyoweekender.com/food-and-drink/restaurants-and-bars/boys-magically-become-girls-at-the-maho-ni-kakerarete-crossdressing-bar/
Aw, dang it, I thought that might be a character, but I didn’t find it.
So one dog is named Rǝx and the other is just “thǝ dog.”
I thought that until just now.
Fair. I didn’t understand what OP was getting at, so I took them literally. It seemed strange to ignore that white people in the early 20th loved depictions of smiling black people in servant roles.
As for ads targeted at black consumers… now I’m curious. I know there were newspapers targeted at black readers. I wonder if they had ads.
Yeah, I’ve been having the same issue. It clears the page after a BRIEF period of inactivity.
Here I thought I was doing OpenAI a favor by keeping garbage out of their training data…
That is indeed the joke, as far as know. Though I wonder if the artist was aware that the closing mechanism would usually be on the other side…
As an uninvolved party, after reading the thread, I understand that you feel frustrated and misunderstood. But I’m sorry to say that I feel like the failure of reading comprehension was on your part more than theirs.
It seems like the majority of people who responded to you argued that there are not two evils, but two parts to the same whole evil.
No one, that I saw, claimed you were saying that the Democrats were not evil. But the disagreement was that you see the Republicans and Democrats as two evils, while your opponents see them as one.
Whether or not you agree, that seems like a logically coherent belief to hold.
Having skimmed the original paper about the trolley problem, I think what the author was trying to illustrate was the difference between direct and indirect harm.
If you redirect the trolley, you’re not trying to kill the man on the other track. You’re trying to save the five on the first track by directing the trolley away from them. While the other man may die because of this, there’s always the possibility he’ll escape on his own.
Whereas if the judge sentences an innocent man to death, that is choosing to kill him. The innocent man MUST die for the outcome the judge intends. So there’s culpability that doesn’t exist in the trolley scenario.
In one case you’re accepting a bad outcome for one person as a side effect, in the other you’re pursuing it as a necessary step.
What about the Xindi?
Agreed, and along the same lines, pointing out bad logic or factual errors used to support a point you actually agree with.
Well, we have a source of input that AIs don’t for the moment, and that’s our actual experiences in the world. Once we turn that into art or text or whatever, the AIs can train on it, but we’re like the photosynthesizing plants at the bottom of the content food chain.
I always wondered if they changed it so that the plural isn’t pms.
Outrage bait. Too much of reddit was stories and videos of people acting badly.
That would be better. But I don’t think there needs to be a rule at all. Some questions are more suited to Watsonian answers, some to Doylist answers, and users are perfectly capable of judging which is which for themselves. The only rule that was needed was, perhaps, a rule against low-effort responses of either sort.
By the way, there is a Daystrom Institute: https://startrek.website/c/daystrominstitute
Couldn’t you just add a comment that says that if the variable is false, then the person is sitting?
Or if the programming language supports it, you could add a getter called is_person_sitting that returns !is_person_standing.