I think they have an adult lined up, I spoke with my daughter about it after making the comment and she asked if I'd be willing to be the adult, so I'm not sure the previous plan is solid. I said yes so long as the other parents are on board, so I may wind up being the adult in the room, we'll see.

I've seen the trailers, I remember the movies I was watching at that age, I've gone looking for any information about the content of this movie to make sure I'm not missing anything, and we've shown our kids select R rated movies before now (Matrix, , etc), I feel pretty comfortable with letting her go on her own.

Maybe that's a mistake, but I'm comfortable with that, too, I don't expect my decision making to be perfect, but I've done my best.

If you've never enjoyed a "dumb" movie then you and I wouldn't be friends. That's no judgement on you, at least from me. Just saying, I'm sure you've found your people and I've found mine, but they probably aren't the same people, and this movie looks exactly like the kind of dumb time waster I'm interested in.

Art isn't about technical components or medium or genre or anything else like that. Art is about emotion. If it makes you react, and feel something, it's art. It needs some abstract element, something that is intended to be interpreted that has no functional goal separate from you the observer, but so long as it has that, and it makes you feel something, it's art.

If it's universally reviled, and that wasn't the intention, you could call it "bad art". But art nonetheless.

That said, "high art" is a little different. At minimum, it requires a high degree of abstraction. Lots of room for, and an ability to instigate, interpretation.

I guess. It feels pretty tame compared to the advertising a couple decades ago, but I'm not watching cable anymore.

I mean, somewhat by definition, though I suppose it remains to be seen if it finds its audience and it's broad enough to believe it's the intended one.

You are obviously younger than the 90s. This movie is crafted in a lab to get people talking about it, no bullshit influencers needed.

I expect silly and shocking to fuck violently and be ashamed the morning after.

😂

My daughter (freshman in HS) is seeing it with her friends this weekend. I might see if I can tag along, sit somewhere else in the theater. Hell, I might do that and just not tell her.

I think they mean journal article

Hence the tongue in cheek. I agree with you.

How about "the US is prepared to recognize anyone who hands Bin Laden over to us as de facto leaders of Afghanistan at the point of transfer. Go. We'll be making a trophy."

Tongue firmly planted in cheek, if that wasn't obvious to anyone.

No doubt there was an interruption in service during the early 90s, but also no doubt KGB Putin got the trains running on time again.

Emotions are just a way of encoding additional information in order to help us predict the future by analyzing the past, without having to remember everything. It's imperfect at best.

Presumably, an AI wouldn't need emotions for the same purpose, since it can (theoretically) actually remember everything. However, since one of an AI's primary purposes is to interact with emotional humans, it should at least have an understanding of how they work in order to work within that system. That means being able to empathize. Or it'll just wind up being ignored.

Hypothetically, we could realize a wholesale benefit to all of society due to something like this, but typically those benefits start by accruing to the wealthy, and it's a hard battle to get them for everyone else.

So fuck off, then, if you're just gonna claim that it's a shallow issue not worth your time or attention then why engage in the tangent from the main point in the first place?

This is not a healthy dynamic to support. It's just a way to flip the historical power structure, so that black people have something white people are denied.

I get why it is the way it is, and I even think it's an unavoidable consequence of trying to fix the problem, which is undeniably still a problem. I have no desire to sing or say the word, which is part of the reason I don't listen to music with it in it. But the healthy end goal needs to be that the word isn't something that serves to divide us anymore. It needs to lose it's power to separate us.

And we don't reach that goal by bringing a white girl up on stage and then criticizing her for singing the song you brought her up there to sing. That makes the problem worse, not better.

This is all a tangent, not at all the point of discussing what OP did with the AI, but if you're going to insist on perpetuating structures of division as a sort of tit for tat and believe that's a healthy way to move us to a place of unity, I'm gonna tell you you're very, very wrong.

The structures of division exist, on both sides, and we can't just pretend they don't, but we don't need to applaud them, we need to see them as symptoms of an illness.

And, anticipating the response, I'm not saying this particular prohibition needs to change now, or first, or soon, or whatever. N word is off limits for white people, I'm on board, there's still a lot of issues to resolve before that one. Just don't put someone just trying to sing a song of an artist they like in a position to fail. It sets us back.

Don't bring someone on stage unless you want them to sing your lyrics.

This is what I'm talking about: https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-44209141

I was off on the timing, it was only about 5 years ago. I can't find where he changed his mind about the reaction, so I may be misremembering that part, but if I am remembering correctly it was much less of a big deal in the news, I just remember reading it.

You know, about 10-ish years ago, a rapper brought a white girl up on stage to sing with him, and then everyone flipped their shit when she sang the n-word which was a lyric in the song they were singing.

When you do something you're not supposed to do, the context is worth noting, but at the end of the day you still did the thing. My point is not to suggest that the reaction in my example was warranted, it wasn't (and, IIRC, whoever the rapper was eventually agreed), but in this case, if ChatGPT isn't supposed to discuss these things and it's discussing these things, context explains why, but doesn't change the fact that it's doing what it was supposed to be unable to do.

Hard to imagine how that might work in the overall landscape of evolution. Let's assume there were two successful evolutionary lineages that began from two separate abiogenesis events. Do you expect both lines to produce their own, say, bacteria? Plants? Animals? I think what you would expect, hypothetically, is that one line produced its own kingdoms of life, and the other produced its own kingdoms of life, and they'd be unrelated.

So, like, you'd have fungus over here and plants over there, but they'd be entirely unrelated. And that's not what we see. They are related.

The other alternative is that these simple forms of life can intermix. In which case, it makes less sense to think of it as happening multiple times, and more sense to say they were so undifferentiated as to be the same thing. This is sort of a chicken and egg problem. If the conditions necessary to spawn life essentially produced a population, rather than an individual, then I don't know that we'd be able to tell the difference without seeing it in action. And the result would be that we're descendents of all of that life, rather than a single moment of abiogenesis.

Intuitively, it would be surprising for two separate abiogenesis events to produce two forms of life that are that compatible, but perhaps such life is so simple that there's not enough complexity to actually differentiate them.

Tried it, was not a fan, though I know others like it. Good price, tastes better than 1800, OK in a marg. May even compete well in the price range, but I'd rather spend more on something I really enjoy.

It's possible the agent only found the one, and might have also found the other if this mistaken one hadn't existed, or perhaps they would have never found the other one.

I don't think it's OP's fault this person lost the book deal - porn is hardly a disqualifying topic in media, unless it was religious in nature or, like, children's books. The agent should be doing their due diligence, both to verify that this was an incorrect attribution, and that the other attribution exists and is correct. That they didn't do any of that tells me this was not something super important to the agent.

>I assume there's also a difference between their 100% de agave offerings and the 51% or whatever ones.

There's a difference, but 1800 (their 100% product) isn't great, either.