Sounds like after they became an internet sensation they’re making so much more money from larger partners that the overhead of supplying small stores is no longer worth it to them.

To be fair to me the attraction of independent shops is stuff that you can’t find in any shop in the country.

I don’t understand how regex comes into it? Sounds tricky though!

I asked an LLM to write a jq scriptlet for me today. It wasn’t even complicated, it just beat working it out/trying to craft the write string to search Stackoverflow for.

The Israeli government has declared this comment anti-semitic and offensive.

Unfortunately they weren’t able to show how it was false.

Fact is that if you want to spend some money, time or political capital on improving road safety, targeting older drivers is not where you should focus your efforts. The fact that it frequently is, is due to ageism.

In the absence of forthcoming data (hint hint), what factors do you think differ between the UK and USA which affect the ability of very old/very young drivers?

This is your regular reminder that it’s generally not older people who are high-risk drivers: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/628ce5c7e90e071f68b19dfa/02-image-2.svg

Drivers get safer until about 70, and only get less safe than your average young driver when over 86.

There is a perception that older drivers are an absolute liability on the roads, which I can only assume stems from impatient people who get frustrated when stuck behind an older driver going more slowly than they’d like.

Really, you can’t think of any reason to be upset that you’re required to take an exam that you then pass?

So they established that language patterns measured by word frequency changed between 2022 and 2024. But did they also analyse frequencies across other 2-year time periods? How much difference is there for a typical word? It looks like they have a per-frequency significance threshold but then analysed all words at once, meaning that random noise would turn up a bunch of “significant” results. Maybe this is addressed in the original paper which is not linked.

Is there a mature filter that you’ve got turned off? I have never seen anything lewd on All!

Your thought experiment is moot as these are real people.

That doesn’t make sense at all. That real people are affected means it is important to get this right, which means it is necessary to think carefully about it. We don’t disagree that real people are getting hurt but it seems to me that you take that to mean we should immediately jump to the first solution without regard for getting it right.

The difference between fantasy and porn is that porn is media content, it is a real image or video and not an imagination in someone’s mind.

You have again not taken the opportunity to say how that translates to differing harm and hence the necessity of a differing approach, even though when you talk about the harms you always talk about things that are the same between the two things.

You are in a very very very small minority of people if you disagree.

Yeah I know. I think the world is extremely backwards about paedophilia because the abhorrence of the crime of child sexual abuse gives them a blind-spot and makes them unable to separate the abhorrent act from the thought. I would have to guess that this is also what’s going on here (but this is less extreme). That is, I think, confirmed by your rejection of making thought experiments due to the situation involving “real people”, as if it is therefore impossible to think clearly about - maybe for you it is.

I can only hope that people learn to do so, because the current situation causes abuse (in the case of paedophiles) and is likely to lead down the road of wrongly punishing people for things done in private without external repercussions (in other cases).

And youre still trying to equate imagination with physical tangible media. And to be clear, if several of my friends said they were collectively beating off to the idea of me naked, I would be horrified and disgusted […]

So the fundamental reality is that imagination and physical tangible media are very similar in this regard. That’s what you just said.

a whole group of boys, some who i might not even know, were sharing AI generated porn with my face

And if they were just talking about a shared fantasy - with your face? You still have the “ring” aspect, the stranger aspect, the dehumanising aspect, etc.

This is why there’s the connection that I keep getting at: there are many similarities, and you even say you’d feel similarly in both circumstances. So, the question is: do we go down the route of thought crime and criminalise the similar act? Or do we use this similarity to realise that it is not the act that is the problem, but the effects it can have on the victim?

If I was a teenager it would probably fuck me up pretty bad to know that someone who I thought was my friend just saw me as a collection of sexual body parts with a face attached.

Why do you think doing either thing (imagined or with pictures) means that someone just sees the person as a “collection of sexual body parts with a face attached”? Why can’t someone see you as an ordinary human being? While you might not believe that either thing is normal, I can assure you it is prevalent. I’m sure that you and I have both been the subject of masturbatory fantasies without our knowledge. I don’t say that to make you feel uncomfortable (and am sorry if it does) but to get you to think about how those acts have affected you, or not.

You talk again about how an image can be shared - but so can a fantasy (by talking about it). You talk again about how it’s created without consent - but so is a fantasy.

Another thought experiment: someone on the other side of the world draws an erotic image, and it happens by pure chance to resemble a real person. Has that person been victimised, and abused? Does that image need to be destroyed by the authorities? If not, why not? The circumstances of the image are the same as if it were created as fake porn. If it reached that person’s real circle of acquaintances, it could very well have the same effects - being shared, causing them shame, ridicule, abuse. It’s another example that shows how the problematic part is not the creation of an image, but the use of that image to abuse someone.

But pedophilic thoughts are still wrong and are not something we tolerate people expressing.

It’s my view that paedophilia, un-acted upon, is not wrong, as it harms no-one. A culture in which people are shamed, dehumanised and abused for the way their mind works is one in which those people won’t seek help before they act on those thoughts.

Having thoughts like that is absolutely a sign of some obsessive tendencies and already forming devaluation of women and girls

It’s kind of shocking to see you again erase male victims of (child) sexual abuse. For child abuse specifically, rates of victimisation are much closer than for adults.

You all say youre feminists until someone comes after your fucked up sexualities and your porn addictions. Always the same.

Luckily I know you’re not representative of all of any group of people.

Do you believe that finding out that, there is an entire group of people who you thought were your friends but are in actuality taking pictures of your head and masturbating to the idea of you performing sex acts for them using alorthimically derived likenesses of your naked body, has no psychological consequences for you whatsoever?

Do you think the consequences of finding out are significantly different than finding out they’re doing it in their imagination? If so, why?

Youre essentially saying that men and boys can’t be expected to treat girls and women as actual people and instead must be allowed to turn their friends and peers into fetishized media content they can share amongst each other.

And, just to be clear, by this you mean the stuff with pictures, not talking or thinking about them? Because, again, the words “media content” just don’t seem to be key to any harm being done.

Your approach is consistently to say that “this is harmful, this is disgusting”, but not to say why. Likewise you say that the “metaphors are not at all applicable” but you don’t say at all what the important difference is between “people who you thought were your friends but are in actuality taking pictures of your head and masturbating to the idea of you performing sex acts for them using alorthimically derived likenesses of your naked body” and “people who you thought were your friends but are in actuality imagining your head and masturbating to the idea of you performing sex acts for them using imagined likenesses of your naked body”. Both acts are sexualisation, both are done without consent, both could cause poor treatment by the people doing it.

I see two possiblities - either you see this as so obviously and fundamentally wrong you don’t have a way of describing way, or you know that the two scenarios are fundamentally similar but know that the idea of thought-crime is unsustainable.

Finally it’s necessary to address the gendered way you’re talking about this. While obviously there is a huge discrepancy in male perpetrators and female victims of sexual abuse and crimes, it makes it sound like you think this is only a problem because, or when, it affects women and girls. You should probably think about that, because for years we’ve been making deserved progress at making things gender-neutral and I doubt you’d accept this kind of thing in other areas.

Hey, it’s OK to say you just don’t have any counter-argument instead of making blatantly false characterisations.

It’s interesting in the case of Ukraine (also with cluster munitions): the problem is that they leave UXO which is then a danger to life and limb for decades after the war. But, so is being under the thumb of a murderous, genocidal dictator. So surely the standard should be not an outright ban, but a ban on using mines outside your own territory, or the territory of another country with their consent?

It gets difficult with territorial disputes but it also needs to be practical.

Are you OK with sexually explicit photos of children taken without their knowledge? They’re not being actively put in a sexual situation if you’re snapping photos with a hidden camera in a locker room, for example. You ok with that?

No, but the harm certainly is not the same as CSAM and it should not be treated the same.

• it normalizes pedophilia and creates a culture of trading images, leading to more abuse to meet demand for more images
• The people sharing those photos learn to treat people like objects for their sexual gratification, ignoring their consent and agency. They are more likely to mistreat people they have learned to objectify.

as far as I know there is no good evidence that this is the case and is a big controversy in the topic of fake child porn, i.e. whether it leads to more child abuse (encouraging paedophiles) or less (gives them a safe outlet) or no change.

your body should not be used for the profit or gratification of others without your consent. In my mind this includes taking or using your picture without your consent.

If someone fantasises about me without my consent I do not give a shit, and I don’t think there’s any justification for it. I would give a shit if it affected me somehow (this is your first bullet point, but for a different situation, to be clear) but that’s different.

Its not a matter of feeling ashamed, its a matter of literally feeling like your value to the world is dictated by your role in the sexualities of heterosexual boys and men. It is feeling like your own body doesnt belong to you but can be freely claimed by others. It is losing trust in all your male friends and peers, because it feels like without you knowing they’ve already decided that you’re a sexual experience for them.

Why is it these things? Why does someone doing something with something which is not your body make it feel like your body doesn’t belong to you? Why does it not instead make it feel like images of your body don’t belong to you? Several of these things could equally be used to describe the situation when someone is fantasised about without their knowledge - why is that different? In Germany there’s a legal concept called “right to one’s own image” but there isn’t in many other countries, and besides, what you’re describing goes beyond this.

My thinking behind these questions is that I cannot see anything inherent, anything necessary about the creation of fake sexual images of someone which leads to these harms, and that instead there is an aspect of our society which very explicitly punishes and shames people - woman far more so than men - for being in this situation, and that without that, we would be having a very different conversation.

Starting from the position that the harm is in the creation of the images is like starting from the position that the harm of rape is in “defiling” the person raped. Rape isn’t wrong because it makes you worthless to society - society is wrong for devaluing rape victims. Society is wrong for devaluing and shaming those who have fake images made of them.

We do know the harm of this kind of sexualization. Women and girls have been talking about it for generations. This isnt new, just a new streamlined way to spread it. It should be illegal.

Can you be more explicit about what it’s the same as?

I mean, the artifact in LotR is magical. Reading too much into the name would be a mistake.

The term “social murder” is co-opting violent language to describe things that are not violent. I’m sure you can understand the difference even if you do like to use the term. What you mean is that the consequences of politics can be extremely severe, but once you see that is not the same as violence the way we both understand the term literally, you see that “politics is violent” is not a useful reply.

What you seem to be trying to say is that, because political decisions can cause mass deaths, violent language is by default justified in political discourse. That’s dangerous and wrong, and leads to politicians getting killed. And it’s not going to be right-wing politicians who get killed the most, because right-wingers are more l ikely to carry out political violence, once it becomes normalised through violent political discourse.

But this was about Israel more than the USA.

There are significant relevant differences between Britain and Israel today compared to German Jews and Germany in the late 1930s. But the same calculations need to apply when you allow violence into your speech: is it going to increase the risk of violence against innocent people? Anti-semitic assaults in the UK rose by approximately 50% in the wake of October 7th. (I was not able to find comparable figures for Islamophobic assaults, unfortunately), so this is against a backdrop in which Jews are at an increased risk of violence. So although “death to the IDF” does not call for violence against Jews in general, as the Chief Rabbi wrongly claimed, it does increase that risk.

Coming from the other direction, shouting “death to the IDF” does not materially call for justified action in a way that “fuck the IDF” does not; they are both merely expressing directionless disapproval. They will be seen too as calls for the governments to stop funding Israel, providing it with weapons, and associating with a government actively and brazenly carrying out ethnic cleansing.

We can also see that things are different for the people directly affected by violence. If a Palestinian shouts “death to the IDF” I don’t see that as unacceptable violent speech; I see that as an inevitable response to the violence enacted upon them. But Bob Vylan is not a Palestinian being attacked by the IDF so we shouldn’t give him the same latitude.

Not convinced this really belongs in Technology; he was inciting violence and would expect to be convicted on whatever medium.