Unrelated to this: man, there should be a parody account called “based beff jeck” which is just a guy trying to promote beck’s vast catalogue as the future of music. Also minus any mention of johnny depp.

Note: the slop in the article preview is Derek smart’s pfp, as he has waded into the comments section. I will not post highlights

How did this thread blow up so much?

Sexy woman coded, perhaps, unless you’re saying that women who don’t have prominent breasts and what appears to be makeup aren’t real women

Why are you conflating “real”ness with sexiness?

But this is a drawing of a machine. Machines don’t have gender, biological or social or otherwise.

This is actually incorrect. Gender is a social construct. Anything can have gender if (a) society agrees upon it.

Whoever created this image thought, consciously or not, “I’m going to make a picture of a robot, and I’m gonna make it a sexy woman robot.” Not just a “woman-coded” humanoid robot […]

You have not proved this. Also, which is it? Machines don’t have gender, or this machine is a sexy woman robot? Your analysis and discourse are inconsistent and lacking.

because that can be done without playing heavy on the sexiness, right?

Again, the image is not particularly sexy. Just having large breast-analogs in the picture doesn’t make it sexy, unless you’re a stereotypical teenage boy.

So why? Why make a sexy woman robot? I ask again: Am I supposed to want to fuck it?

You have not earned the right to ask these questions.

Stupid sexy robots!

E: Oh also that’s just straight up rape culture.

The art is the way that it is because the artist made it that way. The image is not particularly sexual, and robot art can be woman-coded. If you want to project some misogynist angle onto some stock art that has no bearing on the article, that’s fine, I guess.

This is the plot of the Ace Attorney series

I’m gonna be real disappointed if thiel is the anti-christ. Like disappointed in the writing and narrative of the universe

I remember seeing a particularly stupid libertarian guy argue against public transport by saying that car owners would lose out because the value of having a car would decrease. I think it’s a crab in a bucket type mentality. Everyone should suffer from cars. I blame Big Car for this.

Obligatory: If books could kill was started because they wanted to do a freakonomics takedown, lol. It’s their first ep.

Absolute chicanery.

Reducing computer performance:

Turbo button 🤝 AI button

I don’t hate you for bootlicking, I just pity you.

LOL. I checked the modlog. Man, the monocle fell off that sealion real quick.

This is like learning about the christmas truce in WWI.

Also, I had to search both those guys. RIP Sven Guckes, I’m sure I have more to thank you for than I’ll ever know (unless I go back and check the commits). Thomas Dickey, I hope Luigi Mangione’s defence is going well.

lol

You will, regrettably, find it easy to believe what happened next.

The chatbot recommends the patient see a touring clown to cheer them up, only for the patient to reveal that they are themselves that same clown???

Thanks for debunking that. The AI bro writing the OP probably googled “examples of well intentioned regulation gone wrong” and copied the first thing they popped up. As in, I googled that and the first link I got was a quora post with both the example in question and a long discussion thread (152 comments!) poking holes in the example. And if they didn’t get it through google, they probably got it through GPT.

E: forgot to link to the quora post. Link

capitalism working against itself

More like: capitalism reaching its own logical conclusion

I’d believe it! I don’t spend much time looking at the specifics of chud weirdo discourse, but that definitely sounds like something they’d pull out of their ass.