27
submitted 21 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) by pebbles@sh.itjust.works to c/casualconversation@lemm.ee

I never really understood, but now that that house bill passed that may end up blocking AI regulation from individual States. I get it. I don't like knowing that even if everyone in my state wanted to stop companies from using AI for hiring decisions, we couldn't.

Texans, I feel you.

Edit: I'm learning a lot about Texas in this thread. Thanks for all the context folks.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] pebbles@sh.itjust.works 1 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

Rejecting the authority of a monarch is very different than putting up hard borders along an arbitrary line of demarcation and reinforcing residency by birthright.

I'd say progress is progress, even if it isn't perfect. Large scale coordination is more difficult than smaller scale stuff.

Secession, in this instance, affirms the rights of the monarch at a distance.

I can see this, but it also relives the residents that succeeded. Gives them a safer place to build infrastructure.

Obviously it didn't work. But more because neoliberalism valued trade over civil rights and private profit over public prosperity.

Yeah that kinda stuff is my lack of optimism. If inegalitarian systems come together to decide on law for the world, then we may not get good laws.

I think there is a lot of local work to do before I am confident in a global order. If we had systems that represent us well, then combining them to set global standards would rock.

This is the principle of Constitutional governance. Power isn't embodied in an individual, it is a social contract between all residents.

Inequality is on the rise globally, and has been for a few decades. So that social contract is being negotiated by parties on increasingly uneven ground. Therefore this statement is not calming to me. Lots of people agree to bad deals every day.

Edit: BTW thanks for sharing your views, I know I can sound kinda spicy at times when debating. We both obviously just want folks to have comfortable lives.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

I’d say progress is progress, even if it isn’t perfect

I would not call splitting the baby progress. Vietnam, for instance, wasn't liberated through division. It had to be reunited before either half was free from civil war. Same with Germany. Or Korea, for that matter.

But that's just my perspective

this post was submitted on 23 May 2025
27 points (76.5% liked)

Casual Conversation

3308 readers
352 users here now

Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.


RULES (updated 01/22/25)

  1. Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling. To be concise, disrespect is defined by escalation.
  2. Encourage conversation in your OP. This means including heavily implicative subject matter when you can and also engaging in your thread when possible. You won't be punished for trying.
  3. Avoid controversial topics (politics or societal debates come to mind, though we are not saying not to talk about anything that resembles these). There's a guide in the protocol book offered as a mod model that can be used for that; it's vague until you realize it was made for things like the rule in question. At least four purple answers must apply to a "controversial" message for it to be allowed.
  4. Keep it clean and SFW: No illegal content or anything gross and inappropriate. A rule of thumb is if a recording of a conversation put on another platform would get someone a COPPA violation response, that exact exchange should be avoided when possible.
  5. No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc. The chart redirected to above applies to spam material as well, which is one of the reasons its wording is vague, as it applies to a few things. Again, a "spammy" message must be applicable to four purple answers before it's allowed.
  6. Respect privacy as well as truth: Don’t ask for or share any personal information or slander anyone. A rule of thumb is if something is enough info to go by that it "would be a copyright violation if the info was art" as another group put it, or that it alone can be used to narrow someone down to 150 physical humans (Dunbar's Number) or less, it's considered an excess breach of privacy. Slander is defined by intentional utilitarian misguidance at the expense (positive or negative) of a sentient entity. This often links back to or mixes with rule one, which implies, for example, that even something that is true can still amount to what slander is trying to achieve, and that will be looked down upon.

Casual conversation communities:

Related discussion-focused communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS