Oh god, you’re probably right.

To be clear, many documented interactions with chatbots, while certainly quirky or unabashedly, graphically sexual, aren’t abusive.

Counter-argument, sex robots should ONLY be for people who are too violent/abusive/messed up to safely be in a relationship with a real human.

As long as it goes back together as good as it was before

The flaw underlying your argument is the assumption that those jobs will retroactively disappear if the council says “no” to dismantling the bridge.

good governance occasionally means having to make hard decisions because they’ll benefit the greatest number of people

Yeah, let’s just inconvenience this entire town so one guy can play with his toys. What’s the issue?

There very much are winners and losers. This whole article is about the fact that they were excluded from the national championships.

Came down to the comments as soon as I read that. Glad to see it’s already the top comment.

I don’t think your understanding of the Norwegian people is quite what you think it is. (Or your understanding of Americans, for that matter...)

There are some interesting discussion points here about the culture of sports, the requirements of competition vs the expectations of sponsors. The representation of women, women of color, etc. etc. etc.

Yeah, democrats need to win Michigan, and snubbing non-union auto manufacturers is a pretty easy way to score points with Michigan voters.

Yeah, because accepting the fact that most products come with logos is totally the same thing as launching a campaign to force the President to be nice to the guy who owns the company that made your car.

When Letterman asked Kidman about the divorce the only thing she said was “Well, now I can wear heels.”

I do love Ronan, but I’m not sure even she can overcome my conviction that addiction stories make for the absolute least interesting films.

It’s just a fancy way of saying “This new information contradicts my existing opinions, so I’m just going to ignore it.”

Are you under the impression that military actions require the unanimous approval of the entire population?

You’re describing people’s response to the threat, not the actual threat.

Exactly. The threat of nuclear war is FAR greater now than it ever was during the height of the cold war. It just doesn’t have the same cultural impact it did back then because it’s not a new threat.

You should read the article.