To get out of those spirals, I just remind myself that I’ve probably forgotten hundreds of things other people probably regret saying/doing, and odds are most people probably forgot mine. Even if I’m sure someone didn’t forget it, I doubt they ever think about it anymore.

But that sounds haaaaard to design…

Hey, maybe here’s an actual good use for AI, study how lots of people play strategy games, and teach a model to play at varying skill levels.

But then how do you poop if no one is begging? Uhh, asking for a friend.

Ah, but as you say, people only care when they’re “going to” lay in it, meaning they’re not in the bed yet. Once you’re in bed, you pretty much never need to specify the left or right side, you can say “shit, i spilled a drink on your side!”

So, since we only care about left and right sides while we’re not in bed, I say who cares about the in-bed perspective. What matters is how it is oriented while you’re standing up and looking at it. So that’s how I’d assign left and right side.

Ok Cupid (but this was 10+ years ago, I hear it’s gotten shittier since then 🙁)

deleted by creator

https://youtu.be/W-59sWasI98?si=sg-UP6kp4E7H44K

Because I like to think I’m a badass but really I’m just ridiculous (but in a funny way).

You did something due to peer pressure at an age when kids are obsessed with fitting in. In the course of doing so, you realized it was wrong and you stopped. Even now, presumably years later, you still feel bad about it. I’d say you’re good, every single one of us has done things (often involving inappropriate actions) we look back on and regret. You’re fine.

Yeah, the first one was a masterpiece in timing, and balance between story/action/comedy. This second one was great, I really enjoyed it, but the action scenes and the story development scenes both dragged on a little too long. Like did they need to have the meeting with the school councilor? I feel like they already covered a lot of those same points in his Dad’s party.

There were a lot of laughs, but the laugh-per-minute ratio was lower mostly I think because the movie was longer.

Anyways, still very very enjoyable, but yeah I totally agree the first one is superior

Do they also notify users that they are the largest score manipulator by far of their data? And that they do so to bully small businesses to pay up or they will ruin them?

Keep giving them 1 penny and then tracking them down. Do this for most of your life until you are pretty young, and kidnap them. Then you can just relive your life over and over as many times as you want. I mean, sure, it’s not the ethical way to use their power…

"The Story is a ZEE5 Original web series in which celebrities narrate and enact interesting incidents from their personal lives that are bizarre, humorous and terrifying. Through this quirky … Read all

1.6/10 stars"

-IMDB

Ahh, but if I die of starvation, I can’t very well make people happy, now can I? Assuming everyone followed the thought’s direction, the way to best make people happy is for me to live a healthy and long life, probably. (Of course, it’d be up to each individual to determine how to best make other people happy. Maybe I would decide that my contribution to climate change was causing unhappiness, so I would end my life.)

I’m not sure that just putting the message in their heads would make them actually do it. I feel like the (American) right wing party would just start campaigning with “The commie liberals are using Jewish space lasers to plant their eco hoax in our brains! We must vote the out before they use it to turn your children trans!!!”

Yeah, I was hoping the wording of my message would make people give up religious malarkey, but you’re probably right. Even being told “don’t use religion to be a jerk” wouldn’t stop people from doing it.

I’d go with “Hey, it’s God. I actually AM real, but I’m heading out. You guys are on your own from now on, no more afterlife or anything. So be good to each other! Alright, I’m out. (oh, and just some advice? you might want to get ahead of this climate change thing)”

Experiencing something that is truly novel to me, whether it’s a culture, a food, a story, or any other thing, is such an exciting and rewarding feeling. That’s a big one.

Spending time with people I love, and feeling loved in return from then will never get old, that’s certainly up there at the tippy top.

And certain physical experiences are great too. Delicious meals, comfy pajama, music that brings tears to my eyes.

These are a few of my favorite things.

Okay, I know at this point I’m not going to change your mind, but since I can’t rule out that you truly don’t understand how my basketball analogy relates to the Twitter action, here’s my best attempt at an explanation

In Twitter’s actions:

Ownership: Twitter owns the platform and has control over usernames, similar to how the person with the basketball owns the ball in the game.

Unfair action: Twitter took over a specific username without any prior warning or valid reason. This can be seen as an unfair move, as it disregards the user who previously claimed the username.

Moral implication: Just because twitter has the technical power and legal authority to control usernames doesn’t necessarily mean it is morally acceptable to take away a username from someone else arbitrarily. It’s a dick move because it shows a lack of consideration for the user who may have had an attachment to that username.

In the basketball analogy:

Ownership: The person who brought the basketball to the game owns the ball, just like Twitter owns the platform.

Unfair action: If the person who owns the ball suddenly decides to cancel the game and leave when their team is losing, it would be seen as an unfair and unsportsmanlike action.

Moral implication: Although the person has the right to take their ball and leave since they own it, doing so without warning and when their team is losing disregards the other players’ interests and ruins the fun for everyone else. It shows a lack of consideration for the fairness and enjoyment of the participants.

In both cases, the common thread is the concept of fairness and respect for others. Just because someone owns something (be a basketball or Twitter) doesn’t give them a free pass to act in an insensitive or inconsiderate manner. In a moral context, it’s important to consider the impact of one’s actions on others and to treat them with fairness and empathy, even if you have the right to do otherwise. Both situations address the significance of ethical behavior and being mindful of how our actions affect others, even when we have certain ownership rights.

No.

Dang, I thought you could do better than that 😄