Screw immoral. They have been pushing for years now to move from media ownership to it being a license (and a non-transferable one at that). So let's treat it like that. If I own a book in whatever form (physical, digitally, or perhaps stored on an e-reader that is broken and no longer supported), that means I have a license which should morally permit me to format-shift, and own that book in whatever other format exists, read it on any device that is capable, and obtain it by any means that does not amount to actual theft, or constitute distribution (like Torrent).

Personally I buy a great many books on my Kobo reader, knowing that most of them will be gone if the service ever ends. Not a big deal. But books I need to reference, lend out, or plan on re-reading at some point, I will either buy them DRM-free, or get a physical copy. I do wish I could get an actual license for them, one that ensures that I can continue reading that book regardless of what happens to the publisher. Right now, that only applies to physical or DRM-free books.

They're not banning AI generated writing, they're banning unverified content.

Go ahead. Do it then. The second queue already exists anyway. It's called a blog. Anyone can create one. And no one can prevent you from publishing to it, or from archiving those blogs permanently.

A single user can use AI to generate terabytes of unverified claims every single day. At some point, something has to give. Even with blogs, search engines will have to be judicious about what's worth indexing and what is just unverified noise.

It's only unethical if it 1) doesn't work or 2) is carried out involuntarily or without appropriate counseling, or without an actual diagnosis. Around here, that isn't the case (or at least it didn't use to be, things may have changed). People undergoing the procedure know full well what they are getting into, they are rigorously screened and diagnosed, and offered options (for some, counseling is enough, for others, hormone treatments without surgery). And given the low incidence of regret, and the generally improved quality of life following surgery, the conclusion must be that both the treatment and the screening work.

Other than the things I mentioned, how do you imagine that gender dysphoria is treated? It's no longer considered to be a mental disorder either, but something akin to being gay: it's all in the head, but it is innate to the person and not something that can be treated or "prayed away".

"It is worth noting that it is at least almost always comorbid with depression and anxiety, and transitioning does not alleviate those symptoms." Actually, it does, to varying degrees. And yes, surgical intervention for a mental disorder seems weird, but it's the best "cure" we have. People with gender dysphoria do not "grow out of it", and the incidence of regret for sex reassignment surgery is low. Very low. 0.1% or so, and to put that into perspective, that is 1/10th of the incidence of regret for knee surgery. At least it was before they started offering the surgery to people not diagnosed with gender dysphoria (and that is a condition almost impossible to accurately diagnose in children and adolescents, for instance)

The depression and anxiety often remain not because of disappointment after the transition, nor other internal issues, but by the acceptance (or lack of it) of transgenders by society. Thankfully that has improved by leaps and bounds: 30 years ago it was unheard of, 20 years ago it was awkward, 10 years ago something to be curious about. These days people hardly bat an eyelid.

When it comes to "(anti) trans crap" (for lack of a better word), the question is not about the biological sex of transgenders, but whether biological sex or perceived gender should prevail in various social contexts, and when one would be considered a transgender (self-declared, diagnosed with gender dysphoria, or having undergone sex reassignment surgery). And so on. They are social rather than biological questions, even though biology does play a role, for instance when considering transgenders in sports.

"We need AI to do stuff we can't do"
I am letting AI do that... for stuff that I personally can't do. I've had AI design logos, make short clips, draw cartoons, create avatars for online use, write and perform music. I can't draw, sing or perform for crap, and since this is all for various hobbies, I can't afford the humans who can do all that either.

Not the "brain drain" we were worried about...

2 drivers

Sounds like a textbook example for why layoffs are a thing.

I can't even say if you're right or wrong. How do we determine these amounts?

If you take your employer's work home with you, that's something you're doing for your employer. They probably (assuming illegal shit isn't happening) pay you to do that.

If you take your school work home with you, that's something you're doing for yourself. You might even be paying them for it.

That's how a lot of classes were in my high school (Montessori). We were told to read certain chapters of the syllabus ahead of the class, perhaps do a few exercises. In class, the teacher helped with difficult problems, walk the class through the tricky ones, and expand on the material that was studied. And the amount of homework we got was very reasonable.

Removing the swastikas is silly, but I can kinda understand why they didn't want to simulate giving meth to sailors to make them perform...
Then again, in Rimworld (space colony survival game) you can get your team messed up on all manner of stimulants, or even just wire an electrode into their brain's pleasure center. Maybe the difference is that a U-boat crew is a little too close to home.

(Sorry, I didn't have time to read the headline. I only read the experimental results.)

So it looks like either infrasound attracts ghosts, or the lack of it repels them. Has anyone tried noise cancellation as a ghost-busting deterrent/defense?

From the Yahoo article:

...and of course it's in beta to a limited number of users right now.

The problem is not that cellphone location data (or CCTV) was used to figure out who was near a crime scene. The problem (according to the lawyers) is that a search warrant was issued solely on the strength of him being nearby when the crime was committed.