Yeah, that’s how I got my first racoon baculum. Fox too.

There’s even a fairly brisk if low cost trade in them, and is generally going to come from either winter deaths after spring thaws, or road kill.

I can already answer that one: essentially none

My homie, that is not what we are!

https://youtu.be/3mbvWn1EY6g

View. Enjoy. Come over to the awesome side!

Hang around down undah much?

Yeah, that’s not how conversation works, my lemmite acquaintance. One isn’t required to slavishly pound away at the initial focus of a comment. It’s not only acceptable to work tangents and expand on sub-topics, it’s expected to some degree or another.

People seem to think that every interaction online is a debate. It isn’t. Me? I’m just drifting along, chilling, shooting the shit with other human beings.

In that spirit, why do you think “goodness” is either a singular thing that is the totality of a person, or that there aren’t gradations of it? Not all saints are of equal goodness, nor are all villains purely evil. In terms of the human condition, nobody is so completely single faceted that it’s useful to apply good/bad paradigms to the entirely of the person unless the entirety of their actions so heavily skew things that good or evil is such a large percentage that it’s moot that other aspects exist.

I think we can agree that there’s difference between someone like Trump and someone like bezos. Both absolutely horrible people overall, but the degree of horror is not the same.

As such, when you look at the bad of a given person, it has to be taken along with the good.

Now, I think we’d also agree that billionaires as a thing is a net evil so horrid as to need abolishment. But it doesn’t preclude individuals from being the same kind of mix that you and I are. See, I know I have the capacity for darkness and evil. I also know that I choose, even when darkness is lapping at the shores of my true self, to do the most good I can. I hope that the opposite is true for you, that your inner goodness is so great that only puddles of evil reside which are easily relegated to meaninglessness.

But people are never so purely good that they’re incapable of bad things. The same is true of even the most vile examples of humanity from history. In the worst cases, any good may have been accidental, but still.

The ruling class of the ultra wealthy should indeed be abolished. But it’s just silly to pretend that they aren’t human, and thus a spectrum of good and bad

Not really though

When you’re talking about hoarding wealth, the problem isn’t just different from hoarding money, it’s a deeper and more complicated problem.

Assets in the case of these assholes is ownership. If they just held onto cash, all they could do is buy shit, which isn’t really a problem.

What they own is vast amounts of the economy, land, and the labor of people.

They think they own the people as well as the labor and products of that labor. They do to a large extent.

When you start whittling down a tier list of which billionaires are worse than others, and there are layers of shittiness there; it’s about their impact and how they wield that wealth as power.

I’m not sure billionaires actually have billions of dollars just sitting in a bank account.

It’s usually assets that contribute to net worth, not actual cash

How the fuck did steam invent gambling for kids? That shit started back in Facebook games.

It is awesome that you left the previous comment in place. Mad props!

Well, I’m not a code monkey, between dyslexia and an aging brain. But if it’s anything like the tiny bit of coding I used to be able to do (back in the days of basic and pascal), you don’t really have to pore over every single line. Only time that’s needed is when something is broken. Otherwise, you’re scanning to keep oversight, which is no different than reviewing a human’s code that you didn’t write.

Look at it like this; we automated assembly of machines a long time ago. It had flaws early on that required intense supervision. The only difference here on a practical level is about how the damn things learned in the first place. Automating code generation is way more similar to that than llms that generate text or images that aren’t logical by nature.

If the code used to train the models was good, what it outputs will be no worse in scale than some high school kid in an ap class stepping into their first serious challenges. It will need review, but if the output is going to be open source to begin with, it’ll get that review even if the project maintainers slip up.

And being real, lutris has been very smooth across the board while using the generated code so far. So if he gets lazy, it could go downhill; but that could happen if he gets lazy with his own code.

Another concept that I am more familiar with, that does relate. Writing fiction can take months. Editing fiction usually takes days, and you can still miss stuff (my first book has typos and errors to this day because of the aforementioned dyslexia and me not having a copy editor).

My first project back in the eighties in basic took me three days to crank out during the summer program I was in. The professor running the program took an hour to scan and correct that code.

Maybe I’m too far behind the various languages, but I really can’t see it being a massively harder proposition to scan and edit the output of an llm.

Yeah, this is actually one of the good things a technology like this can do.

He’s dead right, in terms of slop, if it’s someone with training and experience using a tool, it doesn’t matter if that tool is vim or claude. It ain’t slop if it’s built right.

Nah, nothing wrong with that. The problem isn’t users, it’s what the company expects from users.

Man, if I ever find my books via their search, I’ll be so hyped

I’m stuck in DDD land too. It totally sucks, and you have my sympathy

If that’s the same person, they had shit ton of dental work done, because the angles are different

A lot of the time, coming in with visual examples to help guide the conversation will help.

Like, if you know cosmetology terminology, just going that route is great, but even with my best friend teaching it, I don’t have enough grasp to pull it off. So find visuals. From what my friend has said, it’s going to go a lot smoother than just using words even if you do have some jargon under your belt.

It’s also important, imo, to realize that unless you just let it stay natural, you’ll be changing styles a few times as you progress from shoulder length to properly long hair. Not just because it’ll frame your face different, but because the weight of the hair changes how it hangs and flows.

I’ve had long hair since I was 12ish, and until my balding progressed far enough that my only style option was skullet, I tried all kinds of styles. I agree with my friend (who, unfortunately, didn’t get into the field until after my ass went bald heavily); the best cuts I ever had were when I took visuals in and used them as a framework for figuring out what I wanted on my head shape with my face.

If it helps, I did find that I looked more androgynous (despite being a beefy dude with a beard) with more layered or feathered styles. It kinda took the harder edges of my features and softened them a tad. Since I have a generally round face and head, it also lengthened my face more than I had thought just a hairstyle could. So, I reckon if my features could be softened that much, it might be a good starting place to look for visuals of androgynous vibes.

that’s kinda where I was in my early twenties after letting it grow back out from a high school mullet.

Something like that might be a decent starting point since you haven’t reached shoulder length yet.

But it really comes down to how it fits your face, so pics are only a starting point for a good stylist to work from

I do not hate myself for loving her.

Was and is one of the most badass rock artists out there

Only dead ones

Hi, my name is salmon, and I’ll be doing your skin care today

Most of the time. There’s rare exceptions. It’s the old “if your only tool is a hammer” thing.

Sadly, part of those are just not wanting to take on a high risk patient at all.

But there are surgeons that will give advice based on the actual patient needs and recommend other treatments, and outright refuse to do a surgery.

But, yeah, surgeons in general assume that a patient coming to them needs surgery. That’s partly because they don’t tend to get patients walking in the front door independently. They’re going to be seeing patients referred to them by someone else that thinks surgical intervention is a possible best choice.

They’re also trained to think like surgeons. Once they’re into training as a surgeon, they learn the human body, and thus the application of medical science, as something that gets operated on. Every problem becomes one to address in that way because they’ve spent years shaping their minds to be very good at that.

It’s really no different in that regard than an it guy thinking of a computer problem in terms of their specialty, or a mechanic wanting to rebuild something that might be fine with a spray of wd40 and some duct tape.

Hell, surgeons regularly have to deal with patients insisting on a surgery when other modalities are more appropriate. It’s a thing they gripe about