orph

I think Monet would have wanted people to see the best version of his work, so I compiled the critiques everyone had and generated an improvement!

Take a straight man to a gay bar and see how quickly he understands consent.

A peer-reviewed paper published last year in the journal Bioethics by two professors at Western Michigan University School of Medicine argues that it is "morally obligatory" to genetically engineer ticks to spread alpha-gal syndrome, a permanent condition that makes you violently allergic to red meat. The paper is called "Beneficial Bloodsucking." Their argument: if eating meat is morally wrong, then preventing the spread of a disease that forces people to stop eating meat is also morally wrong. Scientists should gene-edit lone star ticks to enhance their ability to carry alpha-gal syndrome and expand their range into urban environments to infect more people. They call this a "moral bioenhancer." They frame releasing genetically modified disease-carrying ticks as a "vaccination" that only "infringes" on your bodily autonomy rather than "violating" it. The distinction, apparently, is that a tick bit you instead of a government official holding you down. Alpha-gal syndrome is not mild. The CDC estimates up to 450,000 Americans are already affected. Cases have surged 100-fold in the last decade. Symptoms include anaphylaxis. There is no cure. Alpha-gal cases are exploding across the United States. The lone star tick's range is expanding far beyond its historical territory. And two academics at a medical school published a paper arguing this is a good thing that should be accelerated. At what point do we stop treating papers like this as fringe academic exercises and start asking whether anyone is already acting on them?

i just generated an image in the style of a Monet painting using AI please describe, in as much detail as possible, what makes this inferior to a real Monet painting

Network events are for losers

People living in a utopia will by definition not be virtuous.

Both sides are Wizard-supremacist (there aren't really any alternatives, Wizard supremacy unavoidable in practice) The "good guys" basically think of themselves as zookeepers who have made the world a nature preserve & locked themselves in the cages (via an absurdly invasive surveillance apparatus that presumably sounds fine if you're English) The Dark Wizard opinion, I guess, is that there should be overt domination instead of occulted & restrained domination, but they can't go in guns blazing - Muggle tech is at least at parity for mass killing, & they outnumber wizards at least 1000:1 So the real bone of contention is whether Wizards should be a little more active about mind-controlling Muggle leaders & manipulating the Muggle public The Dark Wizards can't really be interested in enslaving the Muggles - for what? They already have flawlessly obedient slaves Presumably their objection is to the Statute of Secrecy itself - they don't want to be continually surveilled & punished to maintain the nature preserve The only other question is whether out-breeding is a problem - but magic ability clearly runs in families & seems to be a massively dominant trait (squibs are a rare family tragedy) So I guess Wizards are just rare because they slaughter each other every 30 years or so in narcissism-of-small-differences wars about exactly how racist to be

Reading some unpublished Chris Lakin and it hit me -> if you're trying to go "all the way" spiritually AND given that direct pointing by extraordinary means/direct transmission is a thing shouldn't you just pilgrimage to enlightened masters, & not meditate alone in your room??

upside: a pleasant evening with friends, replicable in other forms. downside: a low-probability catastrophic event that permanently alters your life. asymmetric trade with no unique upside - wouldn’t run it