To be fair YouTube Sharts is a thing

In some ways their AI might even be better at this point. I’ve talked with Claude users complaining that their AI kept skipping steps and I haven’t had that problem with GLM 5.

Bitwarden supports them and you can use as many as you want

No I have not

On a serious note, I have looked into leftist organizations that were focused on community building, but haven’t had the time to stay involved and I have to move out soon anyways unless I can find an income source that will let me live on my own.

Passkeys? I don’t understand how that verifies anything

*run0 since its systemd

Actually they’ll take a mile because its bigger and they hate the metric system also

More like forks and patches

I’m in a similar situation as someone about to leave university (also in an accelerated ~5 year Master’s program and just got my Bachelor’s last semester but decided not to continue next semester for financial reasons) and the disconnect between the education system and job market is so bad, I almost feel like college made me stupider. (Might look into PhD programs more though.)

Other concern is that in my current area of specialization I’m now struggling to find jobs that aren’t associated with the MIC or some three-letter agency and I’m starting to wonder if pursuing my interests is digging myself into a trap (or maybe the city I live in just sucks).

I don’t have any advice but I’m sorry to hear that

Floorp is also good since it has PWAs

OpenCode with Playwright gives you full control over what model you use, the prompts, and what it integrates with, and it promotes open weight models. The way Firefox implements this seems gimmicky, and I don’t like that it persistently collects your info while browsing. Also fuck OpenAI.

Now of course the obvious question many people might ask is “are they being truthful?”

Yes that is a large part of what I meant by what are their intentions. If you can reasonably conclude that their that their intended goal will probably involve progressively restricting this area of legislation (whether through implications from their statements or the possibility of them not being truthful), then it is not a slippery slope fallacy.

Otherwise it is just the slippery slope fallacy.

What do you think their intentions are, and why?

YouTube does police their platform, they curate it for babies and remove anything critical of the government

Probably strong influence from corporations, billionaires, other wealthy people, and NIMBYs, along with fearmongering from establishment media to distract from actual problems. And Democrats realizing they can’t win on a pro-genocide platform so now they have to at least pretend to give a shit.

Yes but Trump isn’t the one doing the age verification mandates

So now California has a governor pretending to be pro-Palestine to do damage control while signing laws that give Zionist corporations more control over your data and hardware

only the reasons why the priest’s answer might change.

Then falsely accusing them of being contradictory and irrational.

We aren’t examining how the average English speaker would interpret this

Then what kind of speaker are they? Spanish? Mandarin? German?

There’s nothing to be won or lost by including outside context or narrowly defining the meaning of each word to prove what is or isn’t contradictory.

You’re the one who’s been calling it contradictory.

This isn’t an argument over what the language means.

You said it was “contradictory” and “completely different” and implied it was not “rational”. The only way to prove that is to define what the language means.

You keep adding something that was never in my original post, then arguing against what you yourself added to try invalidate the exercise on the basis of your personal interpretation.

Your personal interpretation of the language is irrelevant, it’s the priest and/or the smoker’s interpretation that matters.

You made up a scenario that can’t exist in real life by making each word only have one definition to the priest/smoker, not clarifying what definitions the priest/smoker have and what the grammar means to them, then asserting that they would answer the question differently based on your personal interpretation of the words (which you haven’t proved that they would based on their definitions of the words). It’s nonsense and doesn’t tell us anything about real-life behavior because the premise is flawed.

Just like the trolley problem, it’s a self-contained thought exercise. But instead of illustrating a difficult ethical choice, it demonstrates a point about language shaping reasoning.

In both cases, there is no conclusion due to the lack of context. That is their similarity.

If you believe, like I do, that the answer changes because their reasoning was shallow and contradictory, also valid.

You haven’t come up with a scenario that actually proves that.

If you dislike my example this much, create your own.

If we take your example, add in the context of an average English speaker but with the assumption that the religion only has one way to pray, the priest understands that smoking while praying is problematic, and the priest understands that praying while smoking is helpful, but has never put the two ideas together, then the answers could be contradictory. But that is because of a flawed thought pattern with different ideas being activated by the two different questions with different focal points, not because of the sentences themselves.

Take a priest who has put those ideas together. Then because the priest understood that praying while smoking is helpful, the priest’s religion is probably not strict about it, so the priest could logically assume non-strict definitions of the word “may” (because the strict definition doesn’t apply here) and that the main action of the sentence is mandatory, then give those responses as a ranking based on what is ideal so they aren’t contradictory.

If the religion does strictly prohibit smoking and praying simultaneously, then the priest would only answer “yes” to either of those questions if they didn’t know or remember that fact, they were distracted, they were lying intentionally, or they were in a mentally unstable state that caused them to say “yes” for a different reason.