The Fluffiest Puff Pastry @chipsinabox - Tumblr Blog

Hi Apple users, Apple released a fun thing where they take your photos and Siri transcripts and use them to train AI! And they may be automatically turned on without your knowledge, because oh boy they sure were for me!!!!!!!!!!!!

Open the “apps” section in your settings (it’s usually at the very bottom), go to photos and scroll until you see “Enhanced Visual Search” and then turn that shit off. Then go to “Privacy and Security”, scroll until you see “Analytics & Improvements”, and turn off “Improve Siri & Dictation” as well.

I am an artist with hundreds upon hundreds of my artworks in my photo album. I also have plenty of photos with not only my own face, but the faces of my friends and my family. I do not appreciate that being used to train AI without my consent, and I’m pretty sure it’s the same for others too.

I’m so tired of big companies.

titsay

geeky-fuckery

theragamuffininitiative

Source:

Advocating for Android as a free, open platform for everyone to build apps on.

Among the many reasons I am clawing my life back from Google.

dailycatsblog

therizinosaurus--cheloniformis

Happy 20th Anniversary of Neil Banging Out The Tunes!!!!!

More rarer images of Neil, my beloved:

20 years.

I find it so beautiful that this little rat's life has been remembered with love for 20 years and will be hopefully for decades to come. Truly a marvel of the internet.

<3 love you Neil!!!!

ms-demeanor

I guess killing civilians is only okay when iran does it

Hi folks, if you're not sure how to have anti-war discussions with people around you I'd like you to take a minute to read this.

This anon is not asking this question in good faith, and this is the kind of redirection/defense that you'll see in a lot of people making pro-war arguments.

The goal of this is to put YOU on the defensive, it's to make you say "of course I don't support killing civilians" or to litigate the count of protesters killed by the Iranian government or to in some other way get you to stop talking about the subject.

The best way to respond to rhetorical attacks like this is to simply not get defensive. Here are some ways to redirect back to your point:

I don't pay taxes to Iran, I am talking about actions of the US military because I pay for the US military. Why are you trying to shift focus away from talking about the actions of the US military?

I said [that the US military shouldn't bomb civilian targets/it is wrong to attack a nation we are in negotiations with] and you are changing the subject. Why don't you agree that [the us military shouldn't bomb civilian targets/it is wrong to attack a nation we are in negotiations with]?

That's a very silly thing to say, and would be a ridiculous thing to believe; why are you making a childish argument instead of addressing the point that the US shouldn't bomb civilians?

I hold the US military to a higher standard than the IRGC, which is why I'm talking about the US military's actions. Don't you agree that the US shouldn't commit war crimes?

Often the person you're talking to will double down, and will say something like "Oh so you DO think it's okay to murder women for religious crimes" or "i can't believe you're defending the Iranian regime's massacre of protesters" and you just have to stick to your guns, point out that they're changing the subject, and redirect to the actual argument.

Remember that when people make rhetorical advances like this, they aren't doing it to have their minds changed or because it's what they actually believe, they are doing it to get you to stop making the argument that you were before. Online and in person debate is about the optics of your side; if you give in to an urge to be defensive you weaken your case or provide ammunition that can be used to undermine your other positions. If you stay on message the person who is coming at you in bad faith ends up demonstrating that they don't actually have a response to your point, which makes your position come off as more convincing to onlookers.

This is not about truth-seeking (you know the truth, and are advocating for it), it is about winning people to your position.

lipstickchainsaw

'Oh yes, I'm sure those civilians are way better off now it's the Americans killing them,' is also a good rejoinder, I feel.

ms-demeanor

That's a reasonable response if you're trying to land a dunk and move on, but if it's a conversation that people are watching it is still allowing the other person to change the subject and weakening your position because to an onlooker that looks like this:

Alice: The US shouldn't bomb civilians.

Bob: So you're saying it's okay for the Iranian regime to murder civilians?

Alice: Oh yes, I'm sure those civilians are way better off now it's the Americans killing them.

Bob: Nobody should be killing civilians either way! Why aren't you condemning the Iranian regime's murder of protestors!

Alice: Of course I don't condone the regime's murder of protestors, but Americans shouldn't be killing civilians!

Bob: Nobody should be killing civilians, that's why America is stopping them, America is focused on military targets!

Alice: Then America shouldn't be killing the civilians!

Bob: The schoolgirls are unfortunate collateral damage, but nobody else will stop the Iranians from killing their own people, why are you okay with that?

And then the onlooker is going "Actually why DOESN'T Alice condemn that? It should be easy enough to do," or "Bob had a stronger point than I thought, maybe I need to do some more reading before I form an opinion."

If they get you off topic, they win because you now have the uphill battle of getting back on topic while also now having to fend off attacks about how you haven't condemned the regime.

There's a standard method to this that is part of why it's such a bad idea for college students to agree to filmed debate with Ben Shapiro or why left-leaning subject matter experts shouldn't sit on Fox News panels. You may know a lot about the things you know about and you may be right, but it isn't about being right it's about whether the other person can undermine you as a speaker enough to make your argument look weak.