Real question as I don't use ChatGPT or Gemini: They publish images of women in bikinis or underwear in response to user prompts? Where do they publish them? I'm looking at Gemini and I don't see any sort of social aspect to it. I just tried the prompt "picture of a dog" and I don't see any way that another person could see it unless I decided to publish it myself.
For this particular one it seems to be that you @grok under a posted image with a request for modifications and that account posts the modified image as a reply.
Right, that seems to me like an important distinction. Other people in this thread have said things like "Well you can draw people in a bikini with a pencil without their permission! Should we ban pencils, too!?" Honestly if someone wants to be weird and draw bikini pictures of journalists they don't like AND KEEP IT TO THEMSELVES, then whatever I guess. That's not what this is. Grok is creating the images. Grok is publishing the images. Grok is harrassing the subjects of the images by posting it in their replies. Neither ChatGPT, Gemini, nor pencils are doing that. (And that doesn't even get into the CSAM aspect.)
One of the many reasons I prefer Claude is that it doesn't even generate images.
As you migth expect, their position is contradictory, working in their favor either way. They have passed bills making it legal to run over people as long as those people aren't members of the tribe:
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
However, our Supreme Court is out of control, and Justice Kavanaugh recently issued a ruling allowing racial profiling, meaning people can be detained for looking a certain way. These sorts of racially motivated detentions are now known as "Kavanaugh Stops": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kavanaugh_stop
So ICE agents don't have to suspect them of any crime; if they "look illegal", they can be detained and deported without due process.
They have released a version of the masked agent's bodycam. Seems to be another Rorschach test: they released it because they think it's exculpatory, but to my eyes it's even worse. He's engaged in a petty argument with the driver, tries to block her car with his body as she drives away, shoots her, then says "fuckin' bitch!" after he's killed her.
Very convenient because right around the moments of shooting the video goes blank and the viewer can confirm the below preconceived notions:
1. The masked gunman was in grave danger when in fact he had stepped aside.
2. The car accelerated rapidly before the shots instead of after the driver was in immeasurable agony.
3. All three shots by masked gunman were in self defense. Not that the next two shots were in the driver's face from side window while standing well clear of the vehicle.
All of this happens in a split second. It's simply not possible, in the evidenced time frame, to fire one shot in self defense and then realign and fire two more with murderous intent. It is also not at all plausible that the position of the two individuals could have changed that much in between the shots. It's also very clear in other video that the officer has been struck and his balance severely disturbed; it takes considerable time for him to recover and he has very clearly fired all three shots before he has properly stood up.
In short, other video evidence clearly rules out any possibility that "he had stepped aside". And we can see the relative timing of when the SUV's wheels start to spin, too, even in the video from behind the SUV where Good is obscured from view by the other officer.
I wish this video would put an end to the claims that she was blocking traffic. This video makes it clear that the very person who shot her was the one who blocked traffic. She was trying to get around that vehicle. Unfortunately I know it won't.
The vehicle is perpendicular to the road and has remained in that position for a considerable period of time as Good circles around and then the other officer approaches the driver's side window. There is no "that vehicle" that she could plausibly have been "trying to get around". Every video makes this clear, including the officer's.
What specific vehicle(s) in that video are being blocked? The posted commentary sounds like it's an open and shut case, but this is what I saw from it:
Before we first see the Pilot, a black Jeep starts to head up the road, then decided to reverse the other way instead. Presumably this is due to the Pilot, but it is unclear of whether they approached and asked to go past but were denied, or whether they simply didn't want to get involved.
The first time we see the Pilot it is blocking both travel lanes, but nobody is trying to go past. Next we see another vehicle further up the road (red minivan) stopped across both travel lanes as well (it could have also informed the Jeep's desire to go the other way).
Four cars then head down the street towards the Pilot, with one pulling over to the right decently before her. The next time the camera pans back to the Pilot, it is only blocking one lane and those 3 cars have seemingly gone past.
More cars head down the street, with some combination of going by her and stopping near her. But all the cars that are stopped around her appear to have stopped of their own volition rather than because they were blocked.
My conclusion from this video is that she was not blocking traffic, but she was being a nuisance with her horn. But in this situation, that horn usage would be Constitutionally-protected speech, and any speech-orthogonal daytime noise disturbance ordinance would not be under federal jurisdiction.
Being an asshole isn't a crime worthy of summary execution, is it?
> The first time we see the Pilot it is blocking both travel lanes
And it stays in this position for a considerable period of time, while Good's partner is walking around outside the vehicle and behaving belligerently.
The fact that she waves some cars past certainly doesn't negate the apparent intent to obstruct the ICE vehicle.
> Being an asshole isn't a crime worthy of summary execution, is it?
You keep throwing "belligerently" out there to describe protest behavior. Yes, protesting is belligerent.
I don't see which vehicles here you are saying were obstructed
The first black Jeep is a probable ICE vehicle, but it looks like they decided to reverse without interacting with her, so that's not obstruction.
Black sedan (ICE) pulls out at 1:23, but then pulls over.
Grey SUV with plate on dash (ICE) pulls out then pulls over to side at 1:28
Green light SUV (not ICE?) drives by at 1:32 and is not seen again (goes past).
Light grey larger SUV (ICE) pulls out 1:48
Large white SUV (ICE) pulls out at 2:12
Light grey larger SUV goes around her to the right at 2:33, while another vehicle goes around her to the left (not due to obstruction, setting up to surround)
Grey SUV with plate on dash (probable ICE) pulls back out and is not seen again (presumably drives past)
From there onwards she is waving all ICE vehicles around and the escalation begins in earnest, so possibility of obstruction is moot.
It seems to me that every ICE vehicle that stopped near/around her did so of their own volition? If there was obstruction, one would expect to see some vehicles stopped around her for some time? I can't speak to before the video started, something the video didn't capture, what informed the original black Jeep driver to back up, etc.
> You keep throwing "belligerently" out there to describe protest behavior. Yes, protesting is belligerent.
You keep throwing "escalation" out there to describe ordinary law enforcement procedure. No, "get out of the car" is not an escalation; it is a response to someone who has already demonstrated non-compliance with a previous request to stop the obstruction.
> I don't see which vehicles here you are saying were obstructed
The ones that cannot continue forward in a straight line because the SUV is in the way, perpendicular to the road.
(I don't know how you're deciding which vehicles are or are not ICE in this video.)
> but it looks like they decided to reverse without interacting with her, so that's not obstruction.
This is beyond absurd. No, if I see that you're in my path, and I elect to choose a different route to avoid you, you have still obstructed me. You have hindered my passage in the direction I want to go, and you have blocked that path.
> You keep throwing "escalation" out there to describe ordinary law enforcement procedure
Yes, because it's an escalation, even if it is per procedure. This is another case of you wanting to define words narrowly to absolve the choices and actions of law enforcement officers as if they're some kind of mechanical robots. In reality we expect them to exercise judgement to minimize harm, regardless of whom they're dealing with. And we can use words like escalation when criticizing their behavior.
> The ones that cannot continue forward in a straight line because the SUV is in the way, perpendicular to the road.
That's the thing, I did not see any of these in this video, which is why I asked you to point out a specific one! Vehicles only end up stopping around her after the left lane is completely clear. One ICE vehicle even ends up in front of her because they got around her to the right! If they had to go to the right into the parking/snow, we could call that obstruction. Except that vehicle ends up stopped right in front of her, so its intent was to box her in rather than merely go past her.
> (I don't know how you're deciding which vehicles are or are not ICE in this video.)
Common sense. Seeing an agent get in, or parked around the agents milling about before it starts moving, with an eye for the larger SUVs that LEOs favor. If I've judged wrong and you think that affects my point, you could have pointed it out though.
> if I see that you're in my path, and I elect to choose a different route to avoid you, you have still obstructed me
Have you really never driven in a city? Other drivers doing weird shit and having to negotiate is the norm. If the Jeep didn't drive up to her and ask/signal her to move, then she did not obstruct them - rather they made a voluntary choice to go around. The fact you're misinterpreting everyday behavior so incorrectly demonstrates some highly motivated reasoning, so I don't know that there is any point in continuing here.
There is no "motivated reasoning" involved in using the word "obstruction" to mean what it is commonly agreed to actually mean. Nor is my implied definition of "escalation" narrow or unreasonable. (The only hypothetical alternate behaviours you have described are grossly unreasonable and would have obvious negative consequences completely not in keeping with how law enforcement works.)
I agree that there is no point in continuing here.
> He's engaged in a petty argument with the driver
No; the argument occurs outside the vehicle, and is with the driver's partner. And it is not so much of an "argument" as him being repeatedly provoked with statements such as "You want to come at us? I say go get yourself some lunch, big boy. Go ahead."
> tries to block her car with his body
No, he does not. He happened to move around the front of the car, which is consistent with circling the car to get video footage of it from all angles which would be part of expected evidence-gathering protocol. The car can be seen (including in other video) to move back and realign as he is walking in front.
> then says "fuckin' bitch!" after he's killed her.
Even left-wing sources like the CBC concede that "It is unclear who said those words."
I saw your comment, vouched for the comment you're referring to, and it reappeared. I don't have a full understanding of how vouching works; it could be that I was one of several, or that it was only coincidental that it reappeared just after I vouched for it.
In my experience the reason Republicans are so interested in what people can buy with food stamps is that they want very much to punish people who are on food stamps. If they truly cared about the health of needy Americans there are a lot of other things they could do, or even a lot of things they could stop doing like making it more difficult to access health care, quackifying vaccine recommendations, holding press conferences in which they say nobody should take Tylenol under any circumstances, making dubious assertions about AIDS; the list goes on and on.
What if we just don't want to subsidize giving people lifelong obesity and metabolic disorders? Why does that necessarily imply we have to agree with you on other issues? Do we need to make it tribal and ascribe ulterior motives?
> giving people lifelong obesity and metabolic disorders
Is that a given? People can drink soda without getting fat. And plenty of people get quite large without ever drinking soda. This seems more personal, like intentionally causing suffering as a moral imperative.
The problem in my eyes is that it's performative. They're making this announcement as if they're doing something revolutionary (they're switching the food pyramid diagram around) while at the same time doing so much to damage the health of Americans: dramatically cutting healthcare access, bringing vaccine denialism to the mainstream, holding press conferences in which they wildly assert that nobody should ever take Tylenol, elevating discourse around quackerism like Methylene blue. The list goes on. And they're making this announcement after spending the entirity of the Obama administration vilifying Flotus for trying to raise awareness of healthy eating.
Its the same thing with eliminating red40 dye. its a crumb. At the very least they should end corn syrup subsidies. Its telling how people often bring up people buying candy with food stamps, but never trace the source of the problem back to how we subsidize bad food. America has a huge blindspot for corporate welfare
I'm finding it hard to imagine a scenario in which this version of the United States would go to war to protect Europe, and I have little doubt that Putin and Trump have a handshake deal in which each will let the other carve up its neighbors. Putin gets Ukraine and Eastern Europe, Trump gets Greenland and parts of Central and South America. As much as I don't want it to be true, I believe NATO is dead.
Maybe "let" was the wrong word. I think Putin has the ability to bribe, persuade, and/or blackmail Trump to sell the interests of the United States for Trump's own personal gain, and I think Trump admires Putin. If Putin has no influence, a person might wonder why Trump's foreign policy has aligned so closely with Putin's geopolitical goals.
Here's a question for you: if the dumbest conspiracy theories you've ever heard turn out to be true, and Trump really is a captive Russian asset, what would he do differently?
He could for example make oil prices much higher which would be great for Russia.
Many ways to do that as well by causing unrest or military conflict in Middle East. Instead it seems USA is insisting on embargos to make Russia struggle even more and it's EU countries that continue to buy Russian resources by side channels.
reply