This does not apply to bread.

If you’re just vibe-roasting some vegetables or a casserole or something, sure. But for bread and bread-based stuff like pizza, it does make a difference. Scientifically.

You’re leading with two questions, here… and it kind of looks like an attempt to frame this as though I’m the one making assumptions. But I want to backtrack to how we got here, real quick:

Someone: Airbnb makes sense for a lot of people under one roof, like for a family reunion.

You: It’s cheaper to rent an event space.

Yeah, sure, your commentary about sharing hotel rooms and amenities and group packages and blah blah might be relevant, but that’s not what you said. You just said to get an event space. That doesn’t have any information in it about where people are actually supposed to stay and sleep, which is what an Airbnb is for.

The comparison of Airbnb to Event Space doesn’t make sense without all of that other stuff, at which point it all very much depends on all of these other factors like headcounts and group rates, so unless you’re making a bunch of extra assumptions, you don’t actually know which solution is cheaper.

Are you saying that they shouldn’t mark it NSFW?

If not, you can always choose to say nothing.

Calling the police on someone for smoking on their own balcony isn’t wrong?

That’s a wild mindset.

And, the plan for sleeping…?

Reunions often involve travel.

Oh shit.

That’s a good guess, actually.

That’s the French public. They’re already doing this, without this article’s influence.

Ask a random English-speaking person (because this article is in English) about austerity measures, and half of the time, their first response will be to look up the definition. What will they find?

After they look up the definition, ask if they would support austerity measures, without being specific. What will they say?

If you instead ask them if they would support slashing the education budget, do you think they would say something different?

We don’t have to play this game where they slash the education budget and then dress it up with flowery language to make it more marketable, or to avoid accountability.

Stupidity is colorblind.

In practice, stripping funding from education and healthcare and poverty prevention is irresponsible, I agree. Those specific austerity measures are irresponsible.

And yet, people still use the term on purpose. Why? Because it’s easy to sell to the public by saying, “It’s just responsible money management,” with the followup benefit that “Anyone opposed to this austerity measure is opposed to responsible money management.”

They’re bullshitting the public by covering up their intentions with language that is marketable. That’s my point. If you agree that this is a “rebellion against austerity”, you’re giving the propagandists what they need to turn public opinion against the thing that these protesters stand for.

We both know that the word is used by liberals in government to justify cutting very SPECIFIC things.

That’s true. Why do they do that? Why do they use a very general word, which could mean a variety of good or bad things, and then exclusively do bad things with it?

… is it because it’s in their best interest to cover up their evil intentions with a term that might convince the general public that it’s a good idea?

And… if that were the case… should we be playing along with it by framing our opposition to a very specific budget cut, as an opposition to a very general thing that the general public might believe is a good thing?

My position is that framing education budget cuts as “austerity measures” is giving them the benefit of the doubt, and allowing them to strip away even the crumbs allocated to the poor, while maintaining plausible deniability that it was all in the name of saving the budget. I reject that framing. I reject the headline.

As I mentioned, cutting defense spending or increasing corporate taxes are also austerity measures. Presumably you’re not opposed to those.

Some austerity measures kill people. Those are the ones you’re opposed to. That does not mean you are opposed to austerity policies; it means you are opposed to those specific policies.

And regardless of my personal opinion on what “austerity” means, the point stands that a skilled propagandist would want the general public to believe these protesters are irrationally opposed to responsible money management, and calling it a “rebellion against austerity” is an effective way to do that. This is because most people treat “austerity” and “fiscally responsible” as synonyms, whether we like it or not.

Well, like, cutting defense spending would also be austerity. Increasing corporate taxes would also be austerity.

A “rebellion against austerity” only serves to paint the protesters as irrationally opposed to responsible money management, in general.

It does make a difference to communication that they are protesting against a specific kind of budget cut. A skilled propagandist would want everyone to think the protesters are making irrational demands, rather than the reasonable and specific demand to not cut education funding.

Finally, AI is actually offering performance gains.

Well, it depends.

You probably think 90% is pretty good because you’re comparing yourself to the people around you. In actual fact, national (USA) seatbelt compliance is around 91%, with the great majority of people wearing a seatbelt ~100% of the time, and the skew being made up of a minority of people who are wearing a seatbelt ~0% of the time.

Now, I can’t speak for what the other person is thinking… but objectively, most people are doing better than 90%. So when you say 90% is pretty good, it seems to me that they’re doing you a favor by telling you that it’s not. If you go around thinking that 90% is pretty good, you might not change, right?

It’s not necessarily a moral judgement. It’s just a fact. By telling you that 90% is not pretty good, they’re helping you, as well as everyone you share a car with.

Cleaning up after a child is not the same as general cleaning.

If you’re an adult, you can get away with daily dishes, and ither cleaning once a week, because you’re capable of taking food all the way to your mouth without dropping it, and you probably have a vague laundry organization system, and some of the time, you out stuff back where you foundil it when you’re done using it.

Kids cannot do any of that shit, so your house accumulates one week worth of responsible adult mess in about 11 minutes.

I have a confession:

When I joined, I thought ML was for Machine Learning.

They didn’t both-sides a genocide. Their statement wasn’t that vague. They’re committed to the belief that every life lost is a tragedy.

On one hand, we have 74k Palestinians. On another hand, we have the 360 members of the IDF who helped kill them.

Obviously one of these is more tragic than the other. That doesn’t mean that 360 people throwing their lives away to hate isn’t also a tragedy of a different kind.

I have an uncle who’s throwing away his friends and family because of hate. If he were racist enough to kill an innocent person, that would be a Big tragedy and a Small tragedy. The big tragedy is obviously the undeserved death. The small tragedy is that my uncle threw his life away for something fucking pointless.

By dehumanizing the perpetrators, we distance ourselves from the fact that EVERYONE has the potential to throw their lives away for pointless hatred. In this abstract context, the only thing that separates the IDF from my uncle is circumstance.

If you can’t convince a Nazi that killing 205 jews is wrong… you should at least try to convince them that their own life is too valuable to commit it to hatred, and killing jews. If you succeed, you still save 205 jews.

Shit.

That’s super dark and super dystopian… and I feel terrible for chuckling.

A shame that John C Woods isn’t still around.

Secret third option: you don’t understand MY second paragraph. If you have a specific question, I’m happy to answer it.