The whole purpose of art is to be an outlet for expressing ourselves as human beings. It exists out of this need for expression; part of what makes a work worth appreciating is the human person(s) behind that said work and the effort and skill they put into making it.

This is completely and utterly your own opinion, not a fact. I know several people who can’t draw for shit, due to various reasons, but now AI allows them to create images they enjoy. One of them has aphantasia (They literally cannot imagine images).

This is basically trying to argue there’s only 1 correct way to make “art”, which is complete and utter bullshit. Imagine trying to say that a sculpture isn’t art because it was 3D printed instead of chiseled. It makes 0 sense for the method of making the art to impact whether or not it is art. “Expression” can take many forms. Why is this form invalid?

Grammar is good and stuff

How dare you good grammar want

What about the people that don’t have a soul

Or, all doors should have an obvious mechanical backup that doesn’t require that.

TOO LATE

Why would anyone want toxic waste in their backyard?

It’s not toxic, nor is it in their backyard.

Not to mention that the search is mainly conducted by companies, which have a vested interest in not making all the issues transparent.

What issues?

It’s genuinely not easy to find a location where anyone would be willing to claim that it will remain unaffected by geodynamic processes for millions of years.

Good thing we don’t need to.

Which has nothing to do with whether technology reduces the need for working hours, which is what I was arguing.

Obviously I’m trying to rationalize what I already said, that’s how an argument works.

I am arguing that better technology reduces the need for working hours.

That’s it.

Yes, but that’s not because technology doesn’t reduce the need for working hours, which is what I argued against.

And you think they just did it because?

They obviously thought they deserved it, because… technology reduced the need for work hours, perhaps?

In response to better technology that reduced the need for work hours.

Unions fought for it after seeing the obvious effects of better technology reducing the need for work hours.

technological advancement doesn’t allow you to work less,

It literally has (When forced by unions). How do you think we got the 40-hr workweek?

We should use them to replace workers, letting everyone work less and have more time to do what they want.

We shouldn’t let corporations use them to replace workers, because workers won’t see any of the benefits.

Ooooo thanks

Ah well I have a 13th gen laptop I use primarily for emulation on-the-go, so if linux was even halfway decent, I’d probably switch it over.

How is Linux scheduling with intel’s heterogonous CPUs? 12th gen and later?

Where would you… find one of these? For a friend

Do you also attack dictionaries for explaining offensive words?

If they use them in an obviously offensive way, yes.

The person who gave the explanation is the same person who initially used it to mean offense. You can check the usernames to see exactly this.

They’re an ass. There is no messenger.

(I recall reading that the damage is proportional to the vehicle weight to the fourth power, probably with some more nuance)

Yes. Road damage is based on vehicle weight. To the 4th power, yes. Heavier vehicles do exponentially more damage than lighter ones. https://www.hagerty.co.uk/articles/opinion/opinion-cars-have-a-weight-problem-and-its-damaging-more-than-the-environment/

But actually it’s based on axle weight. This is why Semis have many axles, to spread the weight out.

But actually it’s based on tire weight. This is why Semis have doubled wheels on their axles.

But actually it’s based on contact pressure. This is why Semis have wider tires than your standard car.