In Canada, a court ruled that Air Canada was liable for its AI chatbot. Air Canada's lawyer(s) attempted to argue that the chat bot was a separate entity responsible for itself, an astonished judge said, "lol no" (not an exact quote). https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/air-canada-chatbot-lawsuit-1.7116416
But that's Canada, and Target is not here (anymore), so...
Not relevant to the company at hand, but there is some precedence somewhere.
Your choice of wording is telling. You compare child commitments to leisure commitments, as though people without children only have leisure to think of. While the comparison is children and no children, making one side obvious and the other side highly variable, but, for example, many people care for other family members and extended networks who are not biological children. It is definitely not leisurely to care for a parent with dementia.
The problem isn't that parents should get special understanding and special treatment, the problem is that capitalist society (distilled into the work scenario) values productivity over humanity. Automation, and now AI, were supposed to let us work less and still sustain the same output, but instead, we're demanded to produce more and more, and we're pushed to work even more than before.
Its the classic strategy of making the poor blame and fight each other instead of fighting the ruling class together.
Not all trans people are transitioned on hormones, so I guess a relevant question is Are trans athletes required to have been on HRT +testosterone blockers for a minimum time in order to compete in sports? At what level of competition would that be required? How and by whom is that monitored? Is it even possible to monitor if, say, an athlete reduces their T blockers?
"Speaking out" has now basically lost its meaning and only means making a statement publicly.
The other day I heard on the radio a survivor of the Jazz plane crash "speaks out" about it. He just described the experience.
And even in an exaggerated/lightened for cheesy humour kind of way, it highlights real issues that northern communities face, as well as some parts of Inuit culture.
I truly cannot understand why Israel make people lose their minds. Replace "Israel" with "China", for example, and no one would beat an eye.
Personally, I'm in favour of "mamsir", which is the obvious compounding of "ma'am" and "sir". The Internet tells me it's used in the Philippines, but I could have sworn I first heard of it being used in India 🤷♀️
The first episode was just set up. The entire rest of the season is the actual show.
Hey, thanks. I wrote that response to be jokey, and I didn't expect an actual, useful reply in return. I will check that out, thank you.
Oh, I can recognize good code from code that works... I'm just not skilled enough to produce the former. (Does that put me ahead of most people by default?)
If I know someone is a terrible person, I can't enjoy their work. Besides not wanting to financially support them, I like to put myself in an author's, actor's, writer's shoes when I watch/read stuff.
That said, I don't purposefully look into people's lives; I'm not into celebrity gossip. But sometimes a person is such an outlier or just so vocal about it that it's unavoidable.
I understand where you're coming from, and it wouldn't apply in this specific context (where locals had rejected the poor boy), but in a general sense, the idea is to partner or invest in such a way to enable locals to lead the change efforts, or at least have a significant stake and voice.
In the business world, there are often silent investors who back entrepreneurs. Their financial input make a business possible, but leave the operations to the entrepreneur. The investor backs the entrepreneur, and they both profit.
It's a different model and it takes more time and effort to find local partners to build up their capacity over time, but enabling locals will get stronger long-term results for the recipients of charity. It's the difference between providing food packages to people and giving people agricultural tools to provide food for themselves in the long run. Obviously, in a situation of dire need, providing food is an immediate need, but only providing food instead of also providing tools keeps the recipients in a dependent situation. If they're dependent on foreign charity forever, it's just another form of control and colonialism.
What this woman had done, by caring for this poor boy, was long-term investing in him. Now he has an education and will be able to work and care for himself.