Emotions are each examples of a continuum. You can be any level of sad or happy or angry, etc.

I’m not sure the distinction of spectrum from continuum is useful for understanding the world though. It’s just conversationally helpful.

Perhaps everything is a continuum but we just manufacture a spectrum so we can classify people for our own ease of conversation.

Just get the dates right, down to the month. Beyond that, you can make just about everything else up and since most employers don’t want to foot the bill for actual due diligence, your interview performance is what matters next-most.

Change your job titles to whatever fits the job you’re aiming to get now(remember you’ll actually need to interview for and do the job if you get it, so consider inflating only about 1 level of seniority upward).

You can add unverifiable resume items to explain gaps, such as a side gig or volunteer experience or family event.

You can make up 90% of the bullet points under each experience item too, which will increase net job search performance by 28% on average and 122% of hiring managers won’t read them or will read them and not ask about them anyway.

If you think companies are going to keep your data and blacklist you, then you just need to formally request your complete PII file under applicable data privacy laws such as GDPR or CCPA. If they did keep your data, the same laws can be used to make them delete it entirely (assuming you’re not also their customer, in which case they’ll have permissible reasons to keep it until you discontinue your subscription).

Oh, if this is just about what people want and not about shelter for the unhoused, then that really changes things. I may have misunderstood, as that’s a totally different spirit behind the bill.

If that’s the case, then it just comes down to which group of people have the political power to mandate what they want.

The central valley does have some of the highest rates of housing expansion in the country though, so I wouldn’t count it out. There’s a lot of opportunity there, it’s just not directly on the ocean.

Is this a weird kind of “war” where there are only two choices?

It seems like a lazy solution to pass a bill at the state level which overrides local zoning ordinances instead of actually handling city planning on a case by case basis.

Why wouldn’t California just incentivize building homes in the central valley? Or inland from Los Angeles on all of the completely open land? What is keeping homeless people at the city center, and will that cause actually be changed if the buildings around them are 3 or more stories tall?

People who live near the areas affected by state-level bills like this will be pretty upset that their local layer of democracy was circumvented by voters from out of town.

Meanwhile, people who move into the new high rises are not necessarily going to come out of the pool if unhoused Californians who were sleeping on the streets nearby. Does the bill control who is allowed to live in these new units? Does the bill account for housing the unhoused during the multi-year period while high rise construction is underway?

If the government has cameras then the footage should be public record and available to the public to download - street cameras, body cameras, security cameras, etc.

If you are ticketed based on camera footage (not the testimony of an officer who was at the scene as a witness), then footage from these camera systems should be enough evidence to prosecute government malpractice when it occurs too.

I suspect that won’t be the case, but California should not let it’s government uphold a double standard wherein citizens pay fines while footage is guarded and not used to prosecute police/politicians when they’re on the other side of the law.

In recent years, people have used increasingly mixed metaphors to obfuscate partisan loyalty tests and characterize objections as suspiciously avoidant or condescendingly elitist so that they can make friends with bigots online and feel a part of something bigger than their lonesome, superficial lives.

For example, the list in the meme hardly makes any sense. It’s true that some people consider some harsh words to be ‘violent’ but there is no reason to believe they are the same people who conflate ‘stress’ with ‘trauma’. So the question “Do you agree?” is a poor question because any straight answer risks confirming the implication inherent to the list of metaphors in the meme: That there is a specific group who believes each of those statements and that group is being “increasingly extreme”.

The meme itself is a political wedge device to make people feel bad and neg on the disaffected and vulnerable in our society so that people who feel tough right now, most of whom have not been through trauma or discrimination, can also feel correct and ethically justified by virtue of not being part of the vulnerable group being called out as “increasingly extreme”.

What’s sad, or funny depending on how you look at them, is that this kind of meme is so awkwardly transparent to both the political left and center that it makes the right seem pathetically ignorant. That’s a shame, because stress is not trauma and only certain words actually lead to violence and disagreement isn’t related to gaslighting at all and being irritated is a matter of opinion while harm is most often not a matter of opinion and people who are repeatedly difficult for the sake of being difficult really are toxic personalities and really do exist in the world.

Any one of these statements make for decent conversation, but this meme turns them all into one long and fruitless gish gallop so that nobody can really discuss any of it and all we’re left with is a loyalty test and virtually zero substance.

Hey what part do you think looks like AI slop?

I can’t see anything suspect but I’m looking pretty hard for it. If I’m wrong then that’s scary.

Is the photo somehow glitched that I don’t see?

I agree with you. Something I noticed and wanted to add: When I mention UBI to people, a lot of them are hearing it like a guarantee that everyone gets enough income to be happy or be comfortable.

I have found that people who interpret basic income in this way tend to become strongly opposed to UBI on the grounds that it could never be funded and would lead to social collapse due to limited resources.

Idk what you picture, but I imagine a person on UBI affording to eat rice and beans in a studio apartment somewhere in a low cost-of-living and low property value geography (though perhaps among pleasant neighbors and like minded folks).

So I kind of think the name “Universal Basic Income” needs to be reworked so it sounds more harsh, almost like a necessary evil. Something like “Rock Bottom Income”, idk.

I don’t have the perfect answer, but do you think conservatives would get on board if it was like “The poors can’t complain, they can take their complaints straight to Bean Town if they don’t like the wages” or do you think they’d still find it unpalatable?

I think this kind of research and discourse about it is important from an ethical and social reckoning standpoint, but I don’t think it is economically worthwhile to engage in a neverending arms race between AI censorship and the boundless determination of trolls.

So my hypothesis is that we are going to see governments roll out legislation that just recognizes defeat and fully deregulates AI generated content online rather than spending the time/money/energy trying to hold corporations or individuals accountable for what LLMs say.

Perhaps we will see regulations around what AI agents do insofar as executing code or submitting transactional requests, but I really doubt there are going to be many enforced limitations on what LLMs say in the near future.

It will probably be the same policies that finally put the copyright concerns over their enormously controversial training data to rest, ultimately killing any prospect of copyright holders to sue for damages over stolen art/code/etc.