To be fair, my father tends to make messages quite incomprehensible by adding irrelevant information all over the place. Sometimes going on for multiple screens while it could easily have been a 2-3 sentence message.
Sadly I think AI would even be worse at picking up what information is important from that. But I understand why people want it.
As for very active groupchats, I am not gonna read +25 messages a day, but being able to glance the gist of it would be awesome.
I had not yet considered that. I am not sure if I agree but you have given me something to think about. Thanks
Most of my family couldn’t have a good faith argument if they tried. They think they are arguing in good faith but it’s just logical fallacies all the way.
Surprisingly they are quite left. Like they arrived at mostly the correct conclusions mostly by accident.
Emotional problems often require solutions that work on the emotion level. In my experience, trying to self it yourself sets you up to try to solve it with rationality. But that often does not work, because the problem is not rational in nature.
This is where a therapist helps. It helps you to solve the problem at the emotional level. That is something a person cannot do by themselves. Asking for help is way easier than trying to do it all yourself.
I personally benefit a lot from https://healthygamer.gg/ as a stopgap measure. I still needed actual therapy, but this helped me through the rough times.
jesus I feel old, and I am only in my 30s. I remember not having apt. How young are linux users nowadays?
deciding what others can or cannot do is a whole other moral discussion.
Cause then it is no longer connected to your body? Why would the same logic apply here? I am confused what argument you are trying to make
I disagree on that. It is a example of the emergency room variation of the trolley problem, as can be read further on here: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem?wprov=sfti1#Variations
Yup in practice it is probably less risky and less invasive to do it early for the host. But that is a separate question. I thought you meant to question the classic “when would it be considered murder” so that is what I responded to.
To answer your question. They consider the argument of “where do you draw the line” to be a red herring.
Consider the following: if a person is in need for a kidney transplant, or else he would die, would it be ethical to force someone to donate their kidney against their will? I think not.
Same applies to abortions. You are being forced to feed a parasitic being in your body, a being that destroys your body in the process. And not having an option to abort would be to take away your bodily autonomy.
As for the line, I think that the person making that choice is the one that draws that line. It is not for us to decide.
It just means that they called their browser “the internet” right? Or am I missing something here?
To be fair, when Facebook was still big the privacy advocates were being branded as paranoid. Those turned out to be right after all.