I don't understand what compels the family to alter his work. If you want a "girl power" self-help book, why not write one yourself instead of stealthily altering an existing one?
I can't defend all the modifications, but let's take a look at why they may have felt the need:
> Men should express their appreciation of a woman’s effort to look well and dress becomingly. All men forget, if they have ever realized it, how profoundly women are interested in clothes.
> Mrs Lincoln’s jealousy was so foolish, so fierce, so incredible, that merely to read about some of the pathetic and disgraceful scenes she created in public – merely reading about them seventy-five years later makes one gasp with astonishment. She finally went insane; and perhaps the most charitable thing one can say about her is that her disposition was probably always affected by incipient insanity.
> Well, except for doing parental controls on your boomer parents TV, blocking Fox news. Thats a good usage of it. You're not going to defeat propaganda believability with boomers. So blocking is best bet.
What an odd viewpoint. "It's bad to use limit your children's access to the internet in any way, but trying to stop other adults from accessing things I deem to be wrong are good!"
I am not even sure where you get "smashing a device violently in front of a child" comes from. He said gets the hammer as in he would perma destroy it.
Anyway I tend to agree for the most part anyway. I was just making a guess about your age irl based on what you said. However some other data actually indicates you are likely gen-x.
Incorrect. Previously at least some lip service consideration to public benefit was given.
Television, for example, had many FCC regulations at its inception to ensure it served in the public interest. This of course devolved over time into nomimal compliance like showing community bulletins at 5am when no one was watching.
You might be somewhat correct with the release of the Internet upon the public in the early 90's, but imagine if common carrier rules were not in effect for the phone lines everyone was using to access the Internet back then. The phone companies would have loved to collect the per-minute charges AOL initially was doing before they went to unlimited. They already had a data solution in place - ISDN - but it was substantially more expensive from what I understand and targeted to business only.
With AI, it's the complete opposite, everything is full steam ahead and the government seems to be giving it its full blessing.
>Previously at least some lip service consideration to public benefit was given
The public benefit here is that all sorts of "compliance" is made cheaper. I can see it already in the construction industry. Stuff you used to hire a firm for you use cheap labor for, they use AI, you have your "one old guy who's engineering license is kept up to date" check it, it gets some tweaks then passes his scrutiny. He submits it. Town approves it because it's legitimately right. High fives all around, three people just did something that used to take a much bigger team. The engineer would have had to decline that job before. The contractor too.
Of course, this all comes at the expense of whoever benefitted from having that barrier there in the first place.
Sure, the automobile wiped out the horse and buggy industry. The difference is that the average person’s quality of life vastly improved as a result.
Most genAI has been laughably poor at doing what it’s advertised at doing for the average person. People didn’t ask and don’t need a shoddy summary of their text notifications and they don’t want AI to take away their creative hobbies.
People didn't ask for online shopping or computers in their pockets, and both of them started out as novelties. Many people thought they were overpromised fads.
It's fine if genAI looks like the Palm Pilot today. Nothing says it will stay that way.
And if it does, opinions may change. But right now it doesn’t and that’s what we are talking about.
We saw rapid improvements in image and video generation but that’s actually proven to be super threatening to people, if not just embarrassing (see the Star Wars alien animal tech demo).
After three years of this, most genAI is crap, it has made most services worse and people very understandably don’t like it.
Where is the Siri that actually does what Apple announced back in 2024?
Women and girls are being forced to endure porn being made of them. The bosses are saying that AI is going to replace the large majority of the workforce. The bosses are saying that efforts to regulate this technology are problems that should be resisted with vigor, lest we "lose" to foreign adversaries. I am being advertised products that suggest that I replace the joyful interactions that I have with my family with interactions mediated by AI tools.
Every negative outcome of the existence of various generative AIs that you listed already existed beforehand and with the exception of "Brainrot content creation" probably won't even exacerbate the problem.
Unfortunately it doesn't. A lot of people using AI are proud to the point of being obnoxious about it. It isn't simply a tool, it's a part of their identity.
It's so bizarre to me that in "The Land of the Free", 18 year olds, who are considered old enough to go to war, are not allowed to drink. Especially because this isn't some archaic law from the 18th or 19th centuries but instead from 1984 and only came about after the federal government withheld funds to force the states' hands over a period of 4 years.
Drinking is an archaic caveman activity that newer generations dont really care about, observed on a global trend. GenX and older millennials ring this bell continuously for a crowd that doesn't care. Shouldn't you focus on issues that actually impact and hurt people instead of trying to point out some "inconsistency" about the usage of the land of the free slogan that no one ever brings up in any conversation about america?
Drinking is taking a nosedive because larger segments of society are shut-in losers, who are not engaging in real-world social spaces which are lubricated with alcohol. That's 95% of the reason, the rest is people smoking when they would have been drinking.
The fall in alcohol consumption is directly tied to a fall in socialization writ-large. That isn't a win, it's a tragedy.
It's not a federal law, you can buy and drink alcohol at 18 in the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico for instance, so definitely possible to drinking at 18 legally in the USA. I don't know if there is a federal drinking age but it's definitely not above 18.
Also in I want to say about half the states (could be wrong here, but at least a few), it is legal to drink well below 18 in a private home.
-------------
Example, wisconsin:
>Can an underage person possess and consume alcohol beverages on licensed premises?
Yes. Persons under age 21 may possess and consume alcohol beverages if they are with their parents, guardians or spouses of legal drinking age; but this is at the discretion of the licensee. The licensed premises may choose to prohibit consumption and possession of alcohol beverages by underage persons. (Sec. 125.07(1), Wis. Stats.)
The drinking laws in at least ~half the USA are a lot looser than most people think. If the parents are ok with it the kid can generally drink somehow.
It’s essentially a federal law - if a state wants to get full federal funding for highways, they have to have a law restricting alcohol purchase and public consumption to 21+. It’s from the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984.
And they can have sex legally when they are 16. But oh noes if 2 16 year olds send nudes to each other. Then, somehow, is "child" sexual assault images.
Frankly, these half-assed laws disenfranchise an already not-permitted-to-vote populace. But somehow these "kids" can be declared as adults if they are 16 and having sex or courts deem them 'adults', but simultaneously find them to be parental property.
Glad I dont have children. The situation is a toxic cesspool.
reply