I think you’re telling me you’re a woman. I want to point out that seeing a tailor is a non-sexual experience. I’m not sure I’ve ever been to one, not even a female tailor, who HASN’T made incidental contact with my genitals when checking fit, particularly in-seam. It’s a far cry from being “groped”. It’s a bit like imagining a lingerie specialist worries about touching someone’s boobs, or that a doctor gets worried about seeing someone naked.
No, they’re not worried about joggling your junk. It’s because you need something like an extra half inch in the seam on the side you dress on to leave a little extra room in your pants for your dick. Well-tailored pants are asymetrical. Not sure those of you who wear briefs need to worry about it.
Oh. Are you telling me the anti-robot revolution hasn’t actually begun? Well, that’s disappointing. Thanks for taking the time to straighten me out.
Wait … That’s exactly what a ROBOT would say!
I want as few cars as possible, mixed zoning, and walkable cities.I don’t believe in a technocentris utopia. I want more quality relationships, and technology in our lives to be more restrained. I am in no way an advocate for the status quo (which by all accounts is AI and robot cars). Robot cars are a step in the wrong direction.
Not unless that human driver was blindly following their navigation app like a total idiot. A person would have said, “oh shit, I want to get out of here.”
Anyway, I believe under it all we’ve got a tension between generally two different worldviews: those who believe Star Trek is utopia, and those who would rather life was more Hobbittish.
Personally, The Shire sounds like a nice place to live. Can we choose that please? You can still have computers, let’s just chill on the whole racing to meet our cyberpunk future.
The article states that there was no known motive, but it also states that automated cars in SF have been attacking people and emergency vehicles, in addition to blocking traffic for human drivers.
It’s pretty clear that this is the beginning of the anti-robot revolution.
I believe that “Indian Giving” is sourced in a cultural misunderstanding between Indigenous and European societies. Indigenous societies were reciprocity based, so giving gifts should be reciprocated with a gift of like value to strengthen relationships, or increase honour (social standing). The Europeans were working in a patron-client system so a gift was seen as a way of purchasing access to power through a patron. The Europeans thought the Indigenous people were paying for access to power (like a tributary), so there’s no expectation of returning a like gift. The indigenous people thought they were entering into a mutual relationship, and when a like gift wasn’t returned that was seen as reneging, so they took back their ‘offer’.
Glad to have an anthropologist kick my ass.