There’s no “requirement” to do anything.
People fall in and out of the public eye. That’s a fact.
CCP can wait until someone falls out of the public eye to do something about an unwanted individual. That’s a fact.
Sure, if you think it’s your responsibility to save any such unwanted individual, you can interpret what they said as “you need a lifetime commitment”, but I don’t think that’s what they meant.
It was an observation, not an accusation for a personal failing.
Yeah this caught me off guard, but the “Cha!” By Texas Pete has no business being as good as it is.
Giving me a hell of a nostalgia trip with that dx though. I remember really, really wanting to buy these little keychains that had live bamboo in them from that site.
Nice gesture I guess, but kinda just the modern day pizza party
Just passing through, no strong opinions on the matter nor is it something I wish to do deep dive research on.
Just wanted to point out that your original comment was indeed just a threat that did nothing to address OPs argument.
Nothing about your comment addressed why it should be treated differently if it’s ai-generated but visually indistinguishable.
Software to “make” 2d artistic images is much easier to develop than robots to do household tasks. Not that we don’t see advancements there either, for example robot vacuums are becoming more commonplace.
Probably start with buying them dinner first
Haven’t used this feature before, but this flag might be what you need
I mean, it’s a gun issue, but definitely not a pro-gun one.
These size 11 shoes were put on me as a toddler, I’ve never taken them off since.
How I aspire to one day have a mudroom so I finally have a place to take off my shoes.
Real talk, just leave em by whatever you deem to be the entrance to your home.
Yeah idk what app you’re using but in sync, once conversations have this many exchanges, it becomes completely unreadable as entire comments are compressed into a single column of 1 letter wide rows. Given this UI issue I’m not sure we can really continue the conversation if we wanted to.
I hope you have a good day - I appreciate the good faith and earnestness from everyone.
Point of clarification - the race is NOT named after the shooter, instead it was named after the organizers friend.
Oh, well when I said , “simply claiming”, I was implying that most folks don’t have an issue understanding what they meant, because it’s simple when you take both paragraphs into consideration.
It seems like just as you chose to interpret things in an adversarial manner then, you are choosing to do so now.
EDIT: sigh, to address your edit:
And I actually said that “to pretend like that is devoid of politics” was a problem, I never said you were saying it.
It’s pretty clear that you were asserting it’s one of my beliefs here:
Did I say that, or are you conflating the cognitive dissonance of me discouraging you from blindly trusting autogenerated summaries with me generally disagreeing with you on everything?
Great. Now that you have a more well thought argument, take it up with them, although I wouldn’t be surprised if they just ignore you.
But on that issue, are you putting the other person on blast for not sharing the info?
No, because it’s in the article being discussed at hand. It’s already been shared, some folks have ignored it.
It’s so weirdly worded to avoid the truth it almost has to be deliberate.
If you read the second paragraph of their comment, it further goes on to say it’s just about the terrain. That second paragraph then reframes the first paragraph, because that first paragraph just states that organizers didn’t comment on the crime, and the second paragraph says what the organizers actually focused on instead.
Sure, quoting the first sentence out of context makes it seem so deliberately precise that it could be misleading, but the second sentence provides the context that shows why they were so absolute in that statement.
They were simply claiming that the race organizers weren’t being political when they founded the race - they just saw challenging terrain and figured they’d be able to give it a go and get do much better.
Look, man, if you didn’t read the article and were misled by the auto generated summary, do not blame someone else for not spelling it out for you.
Maaaybe, step 2 of that miscommunication might’ve been them not explicitly spelling everything out for you, but what was step 1?
It was you commenting without having read the article at hand.
Guess which one of these two is within YOUR control to prevent future misunderstandings?
Things might be different if this comment thread wasn’t centered around a single article, but it is, so the reasonable assumption is that participants in the conversation have read the article.
EDIT: Don’t get me wrong, you get props for going back in the article and recognizing that it provides a very different context from the auto generated summary, but I just don’t think chastising someone else without acknowledging that you messed up by not reading the article is the play.
Step 2 of being outraged by an auto generated summary would ideally be to read the actual article to get more context before expressing that outrage.
I don’t think the issue being raised here is that you were outraged by the excerpt, it’s that the excerpt was trusted at face value enough to mislead folks, and it seems people just double down after being misled by the auto generated excerpt.
Jesus that’s chilling…