Instructors and art books literally give permission to use them as a “stepping stone” by definition. The entire point of them is to offer input to other artists.

Also the main difference is that a human has a human mind and is making creative decisions unique to that human. The problem is that a narrow AI algorithm cannot be anything BUT derivative. They don’t think, they don’t have a mind that filters the data through a unique perspective, they just process the data like a series of conveyer belts. If you never give a human any input from other artists they can still make art, that’s why we have cave paintings. But a narrow AI algorithm needs specific input via specific pieces of art or else it can’t create anything. With that in mind permission and consent is much more important to the artists whose specific pieces are being fed into the algorithm. It’s generally considered good form to credit inspiration in derivative work, but we understand that human nature means that humans may not always remember or realize what or who inspired them. AI doesn’t have that excuse. We are perfectly capable of only feeding images that we are given permission to use into AI, and we are perfectly capable of having the AI log and report what works it used data from.

Well the earliest I can think of christians getting in to politics is ancient Rome, but I’m sure it’s been happening since before then too. As for the US, something tells me they’ve been involved from the start, regardless of what the constitution says.

So many suggestions here are so needlessly complicated. Just put some tape on the end of a thin stick 🤦

Yeah I wouldn’t have an issue with them if they weren’t so incompatible with most of the programs and sites I like to use. It makes them super inconvenient to work with. I know some apps are catching up and supporting them, but it feels like the adaptation is slow and patchy which makes it difficult to know which programs will support webp at some point and when.

Maybe you could set her up a plex library or something like that?

The app I use (Voyager) has a “are you sure?” sort of feature where a window asking if I wanna delete the comment or cancel the cancel, as in undo the cancel and continue writing the comment, pops up. Maybe you could give it a try and see if it helps prevent this issue lol.

Nah I like it, I always hated tight clothes. I am all for a fashion era of comfort and room to breath.

Hmm, I have a calendar somewhere that includes holidays and events from around the world. There are actually quite a few days with no events or holidays, so it’s not unheard of. My guess is that a good candidate is likely somewhat distanced from seasonal constants like the equinox.

That should absolutely constitute a stalking charge at the very least. But I recommend talking to a lawyer to be sure about what you can or can’t do legally.

But do you not see the issue with needing hormonal intervention in order to “learn to love” your child? The hormonal fluctuations people experience after childbird can also cause postpartum depression and cause parents to be apathetic or even resentful towards their children. It’s not something that should be relied on or viewed as an indicator that someone will be a good parent or not. You shouldn’t need hormones to love your kid, biological or not.

If more focus was put towards the foster system then effort could be put towards making sure the right people get to adopt the right kids more reliably. There are lots of bio parents who never should have had kids, so that is far from something exclusive to adoptive parents.

I don’t, but I also tend to talk about stuff that tends to involve a lot of atypical names or words or slang that gets autocorrected to something wrong a lot when I use swipe, and I can’t be arse to figure out how to get it to work for that stuff, so I just stick to typing it out most of the time. It just feels more natural for me.

Honestly, yeah, for the most part. I’m not going to tell anyone they aren’t allowed to choose how they have a kid, and I’m not saying the people who go through so much effort to have a biological child are bad people or anything, but I wish more focus and funding was put on the foster system for kids who have already been born and need homes. I think adoption should be more normalized and adopted kids should be viewed as equal to biological children, rather than them being the second, less desirable choice for getting a kid. I think if less couples viewed biological children as the end-all-be-all then there wouldn’t be as much pressure on parents to be fertile, resulting in less guilt if they don’t happen to be fertile, and adopted kids wouldn’t be viewed or treated like they’re less important. The obsession with passing on a bloodline can create a very unhealthy mindset in people, and it often comes from the societal view that a biological kid is more your kid than an adopted one, and thus you should try to get a biological kid at any cost first before settling for an adopted one.

I’m not saying that nobody should ever have a biological kid or use IVF, I know there are lots of reasons to choose those options. I just think there should be equal focus and emphasis on supporting and normalizing adoption rather than putting so much more attention towards biological reproduction, which already gets all the attention, to the point of trying to achieve something that isn’t particularly necessary. That’s just my personal opinion on the topic at least.

I’ll be honest, I don’t really see why this was needed atm, I think there are too many kids who need to be adopted before we try to focus on giving more people biological kids.

They’re pointing out a part of the video that caught their attention in some way, even if it’s just quotes, it’s still a form of feedback.

I was going to mention that if it’s still growing the user base there may be some less interesting tags, but damn. Yeah, those are just really dull in a random way lol.

You can ingest it, but you can’t digest it and it won’t provide much if any nutrition. It’ll probably make you constipated though.

They didn’t say anything about feeling morally superior, they just explained where and why many vegans differentiate between plants, bacteria, and animals. And let’s not pretend that other people, including non vegans, don’t also draw these lines at any other point, and don’t only bring up these supposed areas of debate whenever veganism is brought up. It’s a personal choice based on personal motivations, just because someone holds a different view from you that doesn’t automatically mean they feel superior to you. This comment is giving me the feeling you’re just looking for an excuse to rag on vegans, when they’re not even the ones who started the discussion.

If you decide you want to be vegan then yes. If you don’t want to be vegan then I guess it’s up to you whether you want to draw a line anywhere or not, or where that line is.

I’m not sure what you expect vegans to eat then. They can only reduce the harm they cause so much. Drawing the line at creatures that move around and actively interact with their environment, including avoiding injury and reacting to negative stimulus, is easier than trying to subsist on, like, nothing. As for bacteria, we can’t like, see them, or avoid them. It’s literally impossible to not ingest them. Plus the only time we actually target bacteria is when it’s harming us, and it’s not like vegans don’t believe in enacting self defense against something that attacked you first. But we can pretty easily avoid eating jellyfish. It in fact takes more effort to eat jellyfish than it does to not eat jellyfish. I mean you can try to get pedantic about it, like whether plants avoid negative stimulus or whatever, but again, vegans have to eat something, or they’d, y’know, die. Jellyfish can have an observable avoidant reaction to harm. It’s a relatively simple line to draw when you have to draw one somewhere.

And no, you can’t hurt a chair, because a chair is an inanimate object. There are humans who don’t have the ability to feel pain, but that doesn’t mean that they can’t be hurt, as in harmed. It also doesn’t make them the same as a chair.

They are a living creature, so no, eating them is not vegan. It’s not about the capacity of the animal to feel pain, it’s about the capacity of humans to harm animals that most vegans take issue with, at least most that I know. Just because something can’t feel pain, does that mean we should hurt it? I’m not vegan myself, and I don’t think it’s inherently wrong for omnivores to eat meat, but I do think that it doesn’t matter if the animal can supposedly feel pain or not. We don’t need to go looking for excuses to hurt other living creatures needlessly.