I have no idea why someone would get mad about getting a vacuum cleaner as a gift. It's boring, sure, but if you keep complaining about your old one, it seems pretty thoughtful.
Everyone’s situation is different. But typically the reason this offends is because for a stay at home mom a vacuum is a work tool. If the current vacuum is broken then you should just get a new one. It shouldn’t take the place of a Christmas present, which is the opportunity to get her something related to her personal interests rather than her job.
Interesting point of view. But it's common for a man to get a work tool as present (e.g. a drill or a set of wrenches), with the obvious implication that the man will usually be the one who will have to use that tool to fix things around the house - and I have never seen anyone find that offensive. So what makes the vacuum cleaner different?
Powerwash simulator is occasionally fun. There's shiny rewards, I don't have to deal with potential bad weather, and there's no random patches that take 20 times to get rid of. If I don't feel like powerwashing simulator, it will wait for me, forever, with no ill consequences or social judgement.
If I never wash my actual driveway, the same is not true. Therefore I will need to wash it at times when it's unpleasant or I don't want to, and it will take longer than powerwashing a driveway in Powerwash simulator.
In this scenario (again, everyone’s situation is different) DIY is more often a hobby for the husband. Repairs are infrequent enough that you could just hire someone as needed, but the husband chooses to do it.
Perhaps more importantly, it’s not his full time job.
The implication is that it implies vacuuming is that persons responsibility to the point of giving them "their" tools instead of it being a shared purchase for the house.
Not everyone will care, but this is a stereotypical type of present likely to trigger anger and resentment in the recipient for a reason.
That's not what he said or implied, he's merely responding to your argument 'Donating any amount of money to prevent people you don't know from marrying each other'. I think you might have a justifiable argument here, but it's not clear at all to me what it is.
I cannot imagine the mental model you're working with if my observation is not crystal clear despite omitting the word "adults" in my initial post. Both your and Y_Y's responses read as bad faith to me, but it could be extraordinary ignorance.
In either case I have no idea how to make it clearer for you. Good luck.
That's right. To get a bit philosophical, it's interesting to see some people's justifications about how they are right to be intolerant in the ways they want to be, while still believing that they are free-thinking and tolerant. A lot of convoluted arguments are really about keeping one's self-image intact, justifying beliefs that are contradictory but which the person really wants to believe. I think that is a trap that is more dangerous for intelligent people.
For what it's worth, I support and supported gay marriage at the time, but don't think people should be forced out of their job for believing otherwise. Thoughts and words you disagree with should be met with alternative thoughts and words.
That's kinda my point, this was already argued like 80 years ago.
> Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
I've had recurring headaches my entire life. Have been to many neurologists, none have any idea what causes them, they just give me different pills to prevent them instead. This isn't unusual for headaches, quite often the cause is basically unknown. (If you ask people they'll give you a series of common things, eg water consumption, eating enough, etc, but it's just all unprovable folk medicine) Expecting everyone to "find the cause" is unreasonable.
If you have a headache, it's totally fine to take a painkiller. (If it happens on a regular basis, eg at least once a week, it can be a good idea to get those different pills from a neurologist, because the two main painkillers have bad side effects in the long run, but those different pills are just "masking" it in a different way)
I am not trying to say that you are never supposed to take medications long-term. I take medications, too. Unfortunately the causes are known (or rather, there is a diagnosis), but there is no treatment or cure.
What I am trying to say is that after the Nth time you would take the kid to the doctor to find out what causes the pain, instead of just giving them painkillers. It could easily be something treatable, or rather, curable.
Isn't that exactly what these sort of things are about?
No one is inspired (which is usually the point of the factoids) by "this person made marginal contributions to the field for 30 years and then retired".
> According to xAI policy, Grok is "not directed" to children under 13 while teens between 13 and 17 must have their parent or legal guardian's permission to use it, and they must agree to the company's terms of service.
You know, I'm pretty sure it's not cool to ask for nudes from a 13 year old even if their parents say it's OK.
That is not clearly the case for Grok, it’s not even allowed by Groks terms and conditions. They have a separate kids mode, which the parents did not enable.
It is exactly like a parent buying a chainsaw, which explicitly states keep away from children, and then giving it to your child all the same.
I am not saying that, but a chainsaw will not do that unsolicited. If xAI is saying it's cool to let 13 year olds use the service with parental permission (note: not supervision, permission), then they have a responsibility to behave appropriately with those 13 year olds.
But there's literally a child-safe mode, which was not activated. (I don't know the details of this mode, I know nothing other than what was told to me in the article, so it's possible that kids mode is worthless. But obviously activating that is step 1)
This seems equivalent to me to taking the training wheels off a bike and then complaining when your child gets hurt.
I mean, call me old-fashioned, but I’d generally expect that magic talking cars would not ask _anybody_ for their nudes. That seems a reasonable default assumption.
According to women I know, they get inappropriate nudes and requested of them infrequently but it’s not a total absence either. It’s been a meme, too. As this thing mimics human text its going to happen without intervention.
I mean, yeah, it's not great even for a regular non-child-mode. But then that has nothing to do with anyone's age, it's just 'send me nudes' isn't a good continuation of the conversation.
Helen Keller was deaf-blind but not mute: she gave many of the speeches she wrote, although she never got her speech as clear as she would've liked. (See e.g. https://redirect.invidious.io/watch?v=8ch_H8pt9M8&t=124) Despite what the National Association of the Deaf's Community and Culture FAQ claims, deaf people can learn to speak: it's just a lot harder, since they have to approach it as an applied articulatory phonetics exercise. (Helen Keller used the Tadoma method to get information that a sighted deaf person might get visually: https://redirect.invidious.io/watch?v=GzlriQv16gg)
If you're neither a bigot nor a member of a minority group, you're unlikely to be familiar with the slurs used against members of that group. And, of course, different cultures have different slurs. The fact we've never observed these words being used as slurs doesn't mean they aren't predominately used that way, in certain cultures.
reply