worth looking into Camera Lucida by roland barthes, sontag's on photography and for something more recent, bernard stiegler's writings on cameras as technics if interested in some of the headier aspects of what cameras and photography do to culture and human relationships (as opposed to, say, legal implications). i tend to agree with the author: the presence of cameras in community spaces have completely ruined my relationship to those spaces. ive seen people here call the author a karen which, maybe, but the last time i went to a small DIY rock show in my community there were more people taking pictures than there were watching the show. what value is it if everyone films and uploads a set from a local band on youtube? what is the point?
FYI for next time you're buying, you can install Firefox on Android, although this is perhaps threatened by Google's planned changes to user's ability to install software.
I think you need to read the comment I was responding to a bit more carefully. (Hint, they would not have made that comment had their kid had an Android tablet)
Well my point is that in case I have no diapers, I may have to resort to peeing outside behind a tree or something (like most of us did back in the days). I guess I could just pee myself. :P
And I have some curiosity with respect to the law.
Oh jeez, I am not into sexual stuff in general and I find if baffling that people do send such pictures, especially to random people but I do not want to come across as someone who thinks I am morally superior because I am most definitely not.
In any case, yeah, peeing my pants might be leaning towards the safe side.
And no, I did not mean "intentionally pee near kids", that is disgusting (to me). I meant that theoretically it could be a problem were a parent with their kid to walk nearby at the same time (and I am curious about the law side of it), not that I would go to a nearby park and do it (I cannot hold it back anyways). That is disgusting. The problem is that I cannot even hold it back, so no matter where I am, I will either pee or pee myself. If I am at a nearby park (not gonna happen, I have mobility issues), then of course I am going to pee myself, unless the park is empty.
Thankfully I have never gotten into a situation like this before because I try to plan as much as I can before going out, but accidents happen.
weird to parlay someone making publicly available information known to those who you are asking money from into an accusation of wanting harm to come to your kids. least of all given that you harmed a kid. "nobody will employ me", well, probably because they have the benefit of the knowledge being shared here.
> paid for in abundance
its my opinion, shared by many in our society, that you did not pay for it "in abundance". in fact, harming a child incurs a debt that can never be truly "paid for". your reward for time served was to no longer be in jail, not to have your history erased.
I'm aware that many people will not be happy even Hell really does exist and I go there for eternity. Many people have expressed this sentiment in the most gory terms. Those people will never be happy, and I think that's fair. I'll pray for them though that they can have a change of heart, so they can have a chance at happiness.
Not disagreeing with the thrust of your post though I would take issue with it being both "strangely eloquent" and "utterly incomprehensible". It's just awkward writing... which, for a platform called WEIRD, is perhaps the point.
Counterpoint: Paul Newman was absolutely a famous drunk, as evidenced by this Wikipedia page.* Any query for "paul newman alcohol" online will return dozens of reputable sources on the topic. Your post is easily interpretable as handwaving apologetics, and it gives big "Its the children who are wrong" energy.
How else does an LLM distinguish what is widely known, given there are no statistics collected on the general populations awareness of any given celebrities vices? Robo-apologetics in full force here.
Those two statements aren't at odds with each other.
For example, there's a great abundance of resources to learn about music theory and such too, the average person doesn't know such things because they aren't interested.
no, it says the opposite, that there is growing interest in bringing it back into curriculums in various states. but that's aside from the point that the smithsonian making a tutorial on reading cursive would just represent an additional resource, of which we are not lacking, to learn. whether or not we teach it is different, but finding a resource to learn is not hard.
I find the article's conflation of two topics involving cursive writing ignorant or disingenuous to the point that I almost wanted to respond with my own comment on that itself. If you study cursive writing in class, you are likely to learn simple and standard letterforms like Palmer script.
But the task requested by the National Archives is more akin to paleography where you can expect each author or work to have their own (region-based/family-based) handwriting that requires decipherment, even for experts. You may have encountered a coworker or schoolmate's indecipherable chicken scratch print writing; that is what you should expect, only cursive.
I mean, I get vibes you work for Waymo based on how speculative and dismissive you are in this comment... but that's probably not the case, eh? Perhaps the vibes are off?
“Please don’t post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, bots, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you’re worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we’ll look at the data.”
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
I obviously don't think the person I'm responding to works at Waymo. The person I'm responding to is making a baseless claim that this is a manufactured issue. How do you degrade a discussion that starts at the lowest possible place when the claim is "the vibes are off"
