In comparison yes, it’s easy. In practice it’s far outside the means of the average American. Hell, more than a quarter of all households in the US are living paycheck to paycheck right now. That’s effectively impossible.

It is that hard, I’ve looked. You typically need to rank highly on a skill list AND have a relatively well-paying job offer. And if you think it’s hard interviewing in your own country, it’s far worse interviewing outside of it.

Have you looked into what it takes to get a permanent visa to one of those countries? It’s not easy.

England not on the list because tea is superior.

Reality has a strong left wing bias, and AI is not reality. No further explanation required - right wingers are gullible and they eat AI slop up.

Yep. Selection bias. There are millions of people in Russia, imagine you only took the one-in-a-million most radical nationalists in your country and put them all in a room together.

And honestly lightweight neural nets can make for some interesting enemy behavior as well. I’ve seen a couple games using that and wouldn’t be surprised if it caught on in the future.

Legally, it seems it does, at least in the US and EU. I assume China too.

Whether or not it should is a different argument, but copyright is a legal framework, not an ethical one.

I’m done with this conversation now because you’re being willfully ignorant (as expected). One quote talking about characteristics is out of context for this discussion. There is a wealth of other context here that you are intentionally ignoring, specifically the many parts showing that scientists do not all agree with a reductionist definition only considering gametes. Your claim that no other definition makes sense is absolute bullshit in the scientific community and you should be ashamed for pretending it’s the only definition out there.

I know you’re just here for the argument, and I’ve wasted enough time on this already. The “gamete size” simplification is Trumpist propaganda and not based in actual rigorous science.

Actual biologists agree that bodies without sex organs don’t fit into the binary definition

Hormone expression (in addition to gamete size) is also a critical factor that scientists use to define sex

Determining “organization” in cases of “physical anomaly” via chromosomes is unreliable

1.3% of people are born intersex, and “intersex” represents an entire continuum

Educate yourself.

That’s not true, there are definitely people both without any sex organs whose body “organization” has no concept of producing any gametes. There are people who are able to produce both gametes. Sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting LALALA does not make these people magically disappear. You cannot argue “well part of their body organization is invalid because of reasons”.

This is classic Dunning-Kruger shit where just because you learned a little about gametes you think you’re an expert, but there’s a huge world of exceptions out there.

That’s a ridiculous definition conjured up by people trying to claim there’s only two sexes. It has effectively no practical use considering gametes on their own are useless for reproduction without an entire system of hardware surrounding them. Plus it guarantees at least three sexes - people who don’t produce gametes at all.

Seen this text floating around a couple times, I like your illustration though.

And let’s not underestimate the intimidation factor of “boom”.

In s thousand years we will be perfectly evolved to consume nothing but raw unfiltered high fructose corn syrup.

Rings don’t mean shit. This is nothing more than tabloid garbage.

Humans are primarily visual creatures, so we can detect the slop in AI images a LOT faster than we can in audio.

Human artists are going to have to get a lot weirder to out-innovate AI music, and I’m actually happy about that. Weird music is the best.

It’s shocking how little it takes to get Trump on your side. He basically only remembers the last person he talked with.

Maybe the headline shouldn’t say “reject” then.

Kick his ass in Fortnite, obviously.