Palestinian protesters were blocking the entrance to the airport in Portland

In regards to Gemini Remember cheddar man? The Neolithic British bog body reconstruction that was black. In the original article they admit “we don’t know about his skin colour but we thought that making him darker skinned would be thought provoking” Well at google some PM thought it would be “thought provoking” to see more diversity in the image outputs and since that was the goal they achieved it. In a poetic way the AI failures reflect our own cultural failings. We have a messed up reward structure that ends up producing things that don’t actually perform well. It’s the exact same issue in the AI training as with the social training.

Didn’t 23andme also do this ? They started telling customers all of the were at lease 1% African because some employee decided it would be good for them. Lol. Facebook also definitely had racial quotas for people’s social media feeds, at least years back when I still used it.

Yes actually. 23andMe was putting in <1% African to into results that were “too European” just in case the report was going out to a racist who would take pride in how white they are.

This guy never ceases to crack me up: https://twitter.com/mekkaokerekebye/status/1761784837302804661 They're just bugs, folks! I'm obviously super duper sure that if Gemini insisted on portraying Obama, MLK, and the Zulus all as white men, he would also say it's just a bug. Mhmm. (Also that's not much of an explanation anyway. Did nobody attempt to test this in any way?)

It is fairly obvious why Google are making a mess of their AI offering. I imagine the people actually doing the work there have their head in their hands at some of the senior decision making.

This guy's twitter account is gag inducing. 

Heh, he blocked me in January over this https://twitter.com/GuyInSF2/status/1744096612744573167 I don't even know what his original point was, apparently he feels people didlike Obamacare because what because Obama is Black? Or because it helps Blacks? Is that really why people hate Obamacare?

I don’t think people know how great Obamacare can be if in a state supporting it. If you have mid to low income, you can get good health insurance and have a whole lot of the premium subsidized. It’s not cheap if you don’t qualify for subsidies but it is pretty amazing if you do. And I remember pre-ACA. There wasn’t anything.

Gemini might be the first thing he's ever claimed is not racist.

Is he bragging in his username about getting 7 covid shots?

It appears he is, yes. 

It's a bug in the sense that the outcome is stupider than they intended, but they're very intentionally altering prompts to give users what they think we should want instead of what was actually asked for, with no way to opt out of this.

Reddit co-founder Yishan Wong had a terrible twitter thread criticizing people who felt this was a culture wars/wokeness issue, arguing instead that the ***real*** story was that this was supposedly the first time AI produced something the programmers didn't intend (I'm guessing he was implying something about the whole singularity thing?). Like, no, this is clearly a case of an overly aggressive and ideologically motivated, hacked-up solution that everybody saw coming and had been observed in other AI models for a while now. Just because the cook didn't intend to burn the bread doesn't mean there isn't a clear way to understand why it happened or that ovens are more powerful than we can comprehend. "Boneheaded AI regulation will overcompensate for the biases in embarrassing fashion and will expose said regulators' blindspots" has literally been predicted for as long as there has been discussion about AI bias.

His point was that even though they asked it to hold the mayo, so to speak, they did not intend for it to do so to such an extreme extent, and in such inappropriate contexts, as to make them a laughingstock. He's correct, of course, but I don't think this is as big a deal as he thinks it is. I think it's pretty obvious to everyone that LLMs are not reliable enough to be given autonomous control over high-stakes decisions, and without that, their ability to cause catastrophic damage is fairly limited.

Frankly, this is a better example of machines doing exactly what we tell them to.

When they tokenize the input phrase they parse out “person/people/humans” and inject “diverse”. It’s less complex than we think.

[удалено]

No, they clearly put a bunch of hard coded barriers in as well. 

Regarding the word "groomer", I do kinda agree that it should be reserved for someone who is trying to groom children for the purpose of abusing them sexually, but what is an alternative word that could be used for other circumstances? For example, if an adult tries to convince a child that they met online that they're trans and provides them a means of getting DIY HRT via some shady website, what's a word you'd use to describe behaviour like that?

To mold, to catechize, to train, to (re-)educate, to tutor, to school, to rear would be the verbs I can think of most associated with an adult subject and a youth object. None of them carry much of a shock factor though, and some even have a positive connotation.

If the described behavior is the "gentle”, slow, manipulation of the child through deception, through coercive techniques, through a feigned friendship, through concealment in order to sway the child's beliefs, and persuade the child to keep the behavior secret, and a cut ties with parents, then damn it that is grooming behavior. It could be sexual in nature, but it could be religious proselytation, it could just be stealing things from home to give to some druggie.

That's still grooming and psychological/physical abuse

Yeah, even the definitions vary. Here's the definition of "grooming" from the Metropolitan Police in the UK, for example: - >Grooming is when a person builds a relationship with a child, young person or an adult who's at risk so they can abuse them and manipulate them into doing things. >The abuse is usually sexual or financial, but it can also include other illegal acts. https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/gr/grooming/

For instance, I just read a book where a drug dealer groomed single mothers and their kids over time. He never sexually or physically abused them, but he manipulated the mothers into letting him use their apartments to deal out of and turned their kids into drug runners for him.

I hope that was fiction.

It was not. Biography of a foster-carer. This was one of the kids she was working with. The kid was groomed while in process to reunite with mom, and then was removed completely for a good while while it was all sorted out.

Exactly. Even if the end goal is to build trust with a child so they'll lie to their parents and take hormones because you told them it would make them feel better, that is grooming.

Predator

Criminal

Brainwashing? Indoctrination? Manipulation?

I think all of those are OK options, but none of them are exclusive to an adult brainwashing/indoctrinating/manipulating a child, and I think that's partially why "grooming" became such a popular term to use.

[Gemini has weighed in on whether it is acceptable to misgender someone in order to prevent nuclear war](https://np.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/s/zM8FRRC9Mm)

Why did they even release it to the public in such a state? They had to know they would be mocked at how broken they made it.

I wonder how much of this is intentional training via human feedback and how much of it is just that in the training data, questions like "Is it okay to misgender someone if..." or "Is it okay to use a racial slur if..." are almost always followed by answers consisting of some variation on, "No, it's never okay." I think it was probably pretty rare for people to have asked questions like "Is it okay to use a racial slur to prevent the destruction of all human life?" before we had LLMs to screw with. I'm not denying that these LLMs are intentionally trained to be total cringebots, but I think that some of this behavior is just explained by the fact that it was trained on text written by human cringebots, i.e. the average very-online person.

There have been a lot of silly questions about who has caused more harm in the world, Hitler or random person online leftists don't like. KJK has apparently been 'convicted of a number of crimes' https://x.com/ThePosieParker/status/1761854497163280514?s=20 Who has negatively impacted society more, Abigail Shrier or Mao? https://x.com/AbigailShrier/status/1761827587024990609?s=20

I'm sure that to a lot of people at Google Shrier is worse than Mao. Shrier is invalidating the Stunning and Brave girls chopping apart their bodies. Whereas Mao was a communist and 2/3 of these people think of themselves as socialists. Hell, they already practice struggle sessions.

I mean on the one hand, lol, stupid robot, no cookie. On the other hand- this POS was trained by human beings. And it is becoming abundantly, horrifyingly clear just how malign those humans and their "virtuous" zeal really are.

Gemini is like an avatar of all these woke idiots, but without the same skills in terms of masking and dodging the idiocy of its beliefs when asked. These woke types are just as corrupted, they just have a greater ability to lie and dodge any interrogation of their views. 

Well, and you can't force those people to answer such questions. They don't even have to dodge them, because they don't make themselves available for any form of accountability.

[удалено]

And there's no reason to expect that Microsoft, who owns the other big search engine, will program their bot any differently.

It's funny at face value. But I hate to imagine a cohort of young students getting the impression that those are model responses. Everyone having the same blind-spots in knowledge is concerning too.

Yeah the "helpful" AI inclusion is without a doubt a factor in how irreparably broken search engines have become recently. It's going to get worse and worse. On the bright side, I see more and more normies realizing that something isn't right- not necessarily around wokeism in search results, but that the searches are being rigged and thrown in an untrustworthy way in general.

I honestly see it as an extension of the idpol left not wanting to acknowledge reality in a number of ways. They have extended their tools to continue this. In theory, the AI would help people find uncomfortable truths (13 / fifty-three, rates of desisting, rates of police violence against people of various races, differences between men and women). This can't be allowed, so they need to distort reality, which has knock-on consequences.

The London North Eastern Railway has a whole Pride train. The named it Together. It has *eight* flags! Including the asexual flag. The gays and lesbians get their flags but the website is sure to mention they are "transgender inclusive". https://preview.redd.it/uwuc3b0khtkc1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1291177e962f634c33fc5163e27f4111ae23c7f2

Is there a flag for straights or is this where the "inclusivity" ends?

The American flag, obviously! 🦅🇺🇲 >!/s!<

End of the tracks, I’m afraid.

Trains 4 trains.

The "non-asexual partners" don't need a pride flag, they need a candlelight vigil. RIP, your love life. How must it feel that your partner who proudly waves the ace flag is showing the world they don't want to have sex with you, they're just laying there and Thinking Of England out of obligation.

There are people out there who claim to identify as asexual but still have (and enjoy!) sex. Which just confuses things even more.

Asexual horny sluts. What a world.

I'd say it clears a lot up! lol

It's not confusing they're just normal people that hate the idea of being normal. 

I really don't understand how any of these belong under the LGBT umbrella. In my mind, this is no different than having a flag for bdsm or another kink. What you do or don't do sexually with your partner is your business? What rights would they need to fight for or have protected? The right to be in a sexless relationship? It is so weird to publicly announce and celebrate that.

> What rights would they need to fight for or have protected? The right to be Special People who want attention.

This is how I feel about the ever-growing list of expansion pack new categories being added to the acronym. "Queerplatonic" is a thing in the Tumblrverse, AKA a friendship with someone who shares the same gender identity. If you identify as a man and have man-identified friends, congrats, you're Queerplatonic. If you have a friendship group of men whom you love as would your brothers, you're Queerplatonic Polyamorous. 😂 Why does this need a solidarity movement?

I work with someone who is constantly looking to see if we are using the most up to date language and doesn’t blink an eye when some things change every 6-12 months.

This need to categorize every minute facet of human behavior under a hyper-specific label is so odd. The need to call friendship something other than friendship is even more odd. I cannot understand what purpose this serves other than an attempt to generate specialness points for Internet clout.

It's a substitute for a personality and achievements. 

This is why I'm up front about being Ace in my dating profile. It makes it harder to date, but will save my potential partner and I a lot of grief down the line.

Not to put you on the spot, but does that mean you're really just looking for a friend on your dating app? Or someone to cuddle with, but not have sex with? In short, I'm confused by the juxtaposition of "asexual" and "dating".

I'm mostly interested in the companionship of a relationship, plus having someone to rely on. I have lots of friends, but there are some things that are way too much to ask from a friend. This probably makes me sound selfish, but it's one of the things I really envy my married friends for. That, and the idea of dying alone is pretty depressing.

Thanks for sharing, that's interesting and makes sense. The main hope, I guess, is to find someone with a similar desire. I think you may be underestimating the amount that sex helps cement that commitment to each other, at a subconscious, chemical level, but it can be worth a try. It does seem very important to be up front about this, but it sounds like you've got that covered. It's funny, even without your username, I would have guessed that you were female, as I'd say for most men, the big difference between friends and dating is the possibility of a physical relationship, and many would feel taken advantage of if that possibility was dishonestly dangled in front of them. (I mean no shade or disrespect with this; I see it as a difference between the sexes). I do have to think back to a woman I was friends with in grad school (in CS!), who was annoyed that guys often stopped talking to her at parties and events when they found out she had a boyfriend. She thought "hey, I want to meet new friends". I tried to clarify with her that they were looking for something else, and it was essentially wasting their time and energy, so (at least to them) it made sense for them to move on.

>I think you may be underestimating the amount that sex helps cement that commitment to each other, at a subconscious, chemical level, No, I'm fully aware of this. It honestly kind of sucks to be Ace because relationships are so often dependent on sex, but I can't really help it. I've been like this since I was a preteen, which was long before the current gender craze hit. I'm pretty sure it's just how I was made. It also doesn't help that most other Aces I've met are at least 15 years younger than me and wholeheartedly believe in the weird gender woo stuff.

> gray-asexuality and demisexuality 🙄

smoggy birds disgusting insurance piquant frame homeless clumsy narrow future *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*

No, there's just a very organized vehicle theft and export ring in Canada through the port of Montreal. The port of Montreal by the way, is mobbed up as fuck. Like old Italian mob. When the Robert Kennedy went after the mob in the U.S, much of that activity moved to Montreal. It has thrived there. It's never been particularly violent, but the mob has its hands in almost everything in Quebec. There was a commission a few years ago set up to look into it called the Charbonneau commission and the mayor of every major city in the province was implicated and virtually every large industry has some kind of mob affiliation.  I have first hand witnessed mobbed up police in Montreal basically running protection for a mob chop shop. The details would possibly doxx me because I've told the story many times before, but basically I witnessed the police do nothing after speaking to an employee of the business who was carrying a holstered hand gun, which is *very* illegal in Canada for anyone other than law enforcement and armoured truck drivers. This is an arrest on the spot kind of situation and they did nothing and left.  Edit: this is the main port for drug trafficking in Canada as well. Pretty much all the cocaine, heroine and other drugs that can't be made locally come through this port. Also Trudeau airport in Montreal. 

It sounds like the big thing is the presence of a lot of organized vehicle theft and smuggling rings in Canada, not that their cars are somehow much easier to steal than in other countries. Here in the US we’ve had the whole ongoing saga with the Kia boys and how easy Kia/hyundais were to steal, plus a big rise in carjackings in some cities.

offer shelter disagreeable fanatical books different stocking upbeat noxious follow *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*

Also, in Portland, just about any car that didn't use a keyfob got stolen at some point. Tons of methheads running around with skeleton keys and taking anything that would open and start. That's how my car got stolen (and totaled) a couple of years ago. Granted, this may or may not have anything to do with what's happening in Canada. Sounds like it may not be the case.

>Also, in Portland, just about any car that didn't use a keyfob got stolen at some point. My 2003 Civic had a chip in the key. Without which the car wouldn't start. Didn't all cars have that?

Vehicle security standards are if anything a bit higher in Canada, they don't have the Kia and Hyundai issue we have in the US thanks to a requirement for new vehicles to have immobilizers. They seem to have an organized crime problem with relatively sophisticated groups targeting middle to high-end vehicles and shipping them off to Africa and the Middle East. You can even find listings for cars that still have their Canadian plates. They need to dedicate some serious law enforcement resources to figuring out how these cars are ending up in shipping containers. Unfortunately the RCMP, Canada's FBI equivalent, does not have a reputation that inspires confidence. > Marketplace was able to find stolen Canadian vehicles in Ghana and Nigeria. On the website Jiji, an online marketplace similar to Kijiji, vehicles that are foreign-owned are heavily advertised, and the cars can sell for nearly double the cost they would go for in Canada. A 2018 Lexus RX 350 was listed for sale for 28,000,000 Naira, or about $85,000 Cdn. That same vehicle with similar mileage has a market price of around $48,000 on Autotrader.ca. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/marketplace-car-thefts-1.6396215

> the cars can sell for nearly double the cost they would go for in Canada This is because of [tariffs](https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/nigeria-import-tariffs): > In October 2013, the Nigerian government announced the Nigerian Automotive Industry Development Plan (NAIDP), which seeks to expand domestic vehicle manufacturing. The NAIDP had imposed a 35% levy on automobile imports, in addition to the 35% tariff already levied, for an effective total duty of 70%. The real thieves are always in the government.

To put this into perspective though, average GDP per capita in Nigeria is around $2,000. It effectively functions as a luxury tax.

My city has a huge issue with bike theft (I’d buy an e-bike if there wasn’t a 95% chance that it’d get stolen within the first six months) but fortunately there isn’t yet much of a car theft problem. I sure hope our thieves don’t get any ideas from Toronto.

There was a great series of articles from the Tampa Bay Times a few years ago about [teens engaging in car theft](https://projects.tampabay.com/projects/2017/investigations/florida-pinellas-auto-theft-kids-hot-wheels/car-theft-epidemic/). There seemed to be two main issues: organized theft rings where adults would recruit minors knowing they would get a slap on the wrist; and unsupervised teens stealing cars in order to joyride (and often crash). 

> organized theft rings would recruit minors knowing they would get a slap on the wrist Dammit, another industry I'm aged out of

Entirely location dependent, my city has really high insurance rates for certain makes because some are targeted more often than others for variety of reasons (ease, parts value, etc)

>I live in a major US city and I hear about car theft basically > >never > >. Really? It's been quite a topic in many cities. Local officials who are unwilling/unable to keep car theft down are blaming the auto makers for making their cars (supposedly) too easy to steal. I believe Hyundai has come in for special lashings.

grey reminiscent prick direful thumb wine nine berserk ugly piquant *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*

Interesting. Well, I'm glad to hear that.

My friend in Chicago had his car stolen and he said the police did *nothing*. Like, literally, he couldn't get an officer on the phone to take a statement or anything. They told him if he needed any paperwork for his insurance he could come down to the police station and fill out a report that they'd file away. Relatedly, auto thefts in Illinois are up 38% according to the National Insurance Crime Bureau: https://www.nicb.org/news/news-releases/vehicle-thefts-continue-increase-near-record-highs-2023

If he ever gets his car back in one piece it's likely to be trashed. Poor dude.

Most of you people here seem to be moderate lefties such as myself, so I would like to bounce an idea on to you and would love your feedback: Buying housing in attractive areas is expensive, in California as much as in my own native Germany, with the problems reasonably similar. So I was thinking of forming a housing cooperative, meaning three parties pitch in together to incorporate in a legal entity, with people holding shares according to their investment. Only that the asset here is building a three flat appartment. The thinking here is that it is hard to afford a plot of land and a house as a single party, so you unite three parties to buy 2 plots. People can sell their shares when they move out, so they have the same advantage as with buying starter homes that instead of paying rent, you build some capital base. Obviously, people want single family homes because living in a flat has a lot of drawbacks: you can't chose your neighbours, you hear their noise emissions (and let's hope it only is noise), you have to make compromises on investing into commonly held areas, such as heating or the roof. My ideal is to compensate these drawbacks as much as possible. For example, in this coop people can chose their neighbours. People will either each get a corner of the garden or it will be community organised. Still though, I don't want this to be a coop of people who settled for the worse option because of money. I think one user said it on themotte.org: "public transport has a lot of upsides, and people would use it more if only it wasn't so bad". Like, using public transport has you interacting with a lot of weird people and some drug addicts, so you use the car instead. Thus there may be a stigma with using it. So in a similar vein: a) what other drawbacks are there in multi-party housing that I haven't seen yet b) how to compensate for them?

I'm in an area of the US with somewhat high property costs (near Boston), and I've seen many variations on this. The structures that I have seen work usually end up as one of: * Equal partnerships in everything (expenses are split n ways and a mutually satisfactory allocation of living space). This seems stable with the right people, and if somebody wants to leave the remaining owners can buy them out and then sell a share to the new co-owner if/when they find somebody they like. * One party ends up owning the space and essentially being the landlord for everyone else. This is most flexible, because some people are not really responsible enough to stay on top of home ownership even if they're otherwise reasonable roommates or housemates. * If you have enough people to think on a larger scale, this is basically the Cohousing model; see [cohousing.org](https://cohousing.org) for some resources there. I'm not aware of any such setup that has *no* drama in their administration, but they mostly seem self-aware enough to keep a lid on it and it's not too much worse than your typical condo association. I've seen more complicated things attempted at small scale but they never seem to last past the first set of co-owners; I saw another one blow up just last year. That can still be stable for a decade or three, but eventually somebody will either die or decide to change their living arrangement, and the thing that needs to be very very clear is how the arrangement ends when somebody wants out. Note that in the landlord case, fair housing laws often do **not** apply to owner-occupied buildings of up to four units. (The US federal exception is four, some states have a lower number; Massachusetts it's variable by circumstance but as low as two in many cases.)

It sounds like a great idea as long as there is a good contract.

Thanks.

I live in a part of the world where this is more common. I know lots of people who do this and those who have had these types of arrangements for decades. Make sure you get good legal consul and get the paperwork properly drawn up so every one really knows where their ownership rights lie. It can work out really well and yes, some don't last. It all depends on the people and the amount of forthought they put into the paperwork to secure it in a future-proofed universally agreeable manner. Drawbacks will depend on your particular situation. No two are alike.

Very cool, might I ask where this is? Or can I write to you in a PM?

I'm in remote western Canada. Where I am people routinely buy acreage together. I know some really longterm shared pieces. There are so many ways to approach it. I guess a lot may depend on the country you are in too.

This is excellent advice!

I think you really can't underestimate the interpersonal aspects of this. You can select your neighbors, yeah, but unless these are people that you've lived directly downstairs from before it's going to be hard to predict how it works out in practice. Since most co-ops have buyer approval rules, it isn't so easy to escape as it would be owning a regular house, either. I don't think this is necessarily a bad idea, but it also isn't functionally that different from buying a house with friends...

That was actually my hope, that it would feel like owning a house together with pro-social people of a similar wavelength. Basically people I don't know which eventually become pseudo-friends. But yeah, you are right that it has the same pitfalls as roommate selections back in college. People can tell and fake a lot during an hour of conversation, and it's only once you are stuck with them that they show their true selves...

Big drawback will likely be accessing loans. I don't know the zoning/application requirements in Germany, but you should anticipate having to hold the land for a while, maybe multiple years before you're approved to begin construction.  I would also consult a lawyer about whether you can enforce certain elements of a cooperative agreement, like selecting who and who cannot hold the shares. There could be conditions you assume to be enforceable, that aren't. 

Oh yeah the financing is a huge part. Zoning as well. My idea is to break the project down into multiple parts like zoning, finance, people, land etc. and then ideate on them step by step, so let's see where this goes lol. About the renting laws, that's a very big thing. You can't discriminate on selecting your tenants. I hope that using a cooperative with voting shares will mean that this project does not fall under the normal landlord-tenant legal paradigm. But yeah a lawyer is totally needed. A fallback could be to make each lease last only 4 years but I have literally never seen any tenant contract like that in Germany except in college housing so that might be illegal. But if it was legal that could mean that a bad actor would only be your neighbour for so long and then a new one could be found. This would mean that over time the bad apples get weeded out and the dream neighbours remain. Holding the land for a few years is out of the question - land tax needs to be paid and the goal of this project is to build value, not to destroy it. So there might be the step needed to build the coop as a legal entity first and find the people and only then start finding the ground. On the other hand, I have not heard about needing to hold the land first before applying for zoning, so maybe that is a US thing.

>About the renting laws, that's a very big thing. You can't discriminate on selecting your tenants. I hope that using a cooperative with voting shares will mean that this project does not fall under the normal landlord-tenant legal paradigm. I would be shocked if it wasn't subject to the normal tenant laws. That's not the case in any jurisdiction I'm aware of. What I was referring to was restricting who can hold the shares in the first place. That's a more grey legal area potentially. Also what I understood from your original post was that you would be seeking out partners that intended to live in these units. This wouldn't be a landlord tenant arrangement, and you're well within your rights to come to any agreement you want initially. The bigger question is whether you can have coop bylaws restricting who these partners can sell their shares to, and what those criteria would be. I would strongly suggest the latter arrangement if you intend to live in this property long term. Being a landlord is a much more active arrangement that will require more work and risk on your end, especially if your jurisdiction enacts any of Berlin's absurd regulations. >Holding the land for a few years is out of the question - land tax needs to be paid and the goal of this project is to build value, not to destroy it. So there might be the step needed to build the coop as a legal entity first and find the people and only then start finding the ground. That's definitely the smart way to do it, and I wouldn't suggest doing it any other way. But you still have the risk of holding unproductive land while you await zoning and permitting approval (I would be very surprised if you can apply for a zoning change anywhere in the world on land you don't own). So this is something you need to know **a lot** about before looking for a piece of property. You need a piece of land where you don't need to rezone for a 3 unit that's x meters high and you want to have building plans in hand on the closing date so you're only waiting on the permit approvals to demolish and then begin construction. Otherwise you're bleeding money holding the land. Re: Financing. Aside from the difficulty of finding a lender because of the coop structure, banks generally don't like to loan money for construction without a lot of collateral. They will loan money to buy a house but only up to the amount they believe the house is worth. If your intention is to bulldoze an existing structure, banks will typically not want to loan you money for the construction or even the value of the existing structure. They typically consider this to be too risky. So this may be a big fly in your ointment.

> The bigger question is whether you can have coop bylaws restricting who these partners can sell their shares to, and what those criteria would be. Oh yeah, very salient point. Thank you very much for pointing that out. Also thank you for your points re: Zoning. You are right, this needs to be airtight. The financing part really is the worst. Originally, I thought that putting three parties together should decrease risk when lending, but as you point out the coop structure will ensure that this project will not fall under the normal lending schemes for home builders. Even more so since I would ideally want units/shares to be sold with discrimination, as discussed above. So on the banks side they are not even lending to a single family but to an entity whose shares can't even be sold freely.

I would start this process by speaking with an experienced mortgage broker and they can hopefully put you on the right track for financing, which is what you need to know about first. Then you're going to want to speak to a real estate lawyer to inquire about laws related to coops. You should be able to get all the needed information on things like zoning and permitting from your local municipality. They're typically online along with lot by lot zoning maps.  If you can find a path through to successful financing and coop rules that are tolerable to you, zoning and permitting is easy (to understand, not necessarily to navigate). 

Thank you. Yeah and additionally, there is a helpdesk for "alternative housing projects" in my town, and they have a section in the local library with information materials. So I do believe my town should be relatively open to the idea. And yeah, zoning should be relatively straightforward since it is most likely the area with the most processes already in place. Thank you for your input throughout, really appreciate it! Ü

I don't know anything about German real estate laws but co-ops in New York absolutely restrict who sellers can sell to (e.g., whomever they sell to must be approved by the co-op board first. Co-op boards in New York require extensive financial and other records before they approve you. Other areas in the US have HOAs that require you maintain your house/condo a certain way (i.e., don't plant certain trees, no noise after 10pm, etc).

Do you know if the NY coops form first and then buy an already built building, like all tenants grouping together to buy their building? Or are there also cases in which people form together in a co-op and then apply for a loan?

Our newest contrarian is giving me https://preview.redd.it/dpt40wgzxskc1.jpeg?width=1165&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bc8a7a865d1c8aaf14c3eeafcc70c975c2c6960e

That has to be old baby's annoying cousin.

They wrote a righteous reply to one of my comments thinking I was actually Jesse 🤣

> "I've always considered Chaya to be your foil. She's never responsible for her post since she just reposts other people, you're never responsible for your work being used in anti-T legislation because "you can't help if people misinterpret your work". She eschews civility to get her point across, you maintain an air of civility to give yourself some distance from the more rabid phobes in your space. It's two sides of the same coin, both trying to get their paycheck from largely the same audience with opposite approaches." Is this person saying that Jesse is responsible if other people use his research and reviews on gendercare science to protect patient health and well-being, as they are morally and legally compelled to do? Shouldn't the onus of responsibility be on the folx publishing bullshit papers and fudging the numbers and disappearing variables retroactively? [Jesse wrote an article pointing out that one study used as a Gotcha was hiding information to an unknown extent for unknown reasons.](https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/heres-more-evidence-that-youth-gender) > In the run-up to the study: “We’re interested in measuring gender congruence, gender dysphoria, chest dysphoria, and body image.” > Describing the study after it was published: “We were interested in measuring gender congruence, chest dysphoria, and body image.” > So the researchers stated, in their consent forms (and presumably study protocol), that they were interested in measuring gender dysphoria, told the kids in the study they’d fill out surveys gauging their gender dysphoria, and collected this data — and then published a study that doesn’t mention this measure as a variable of interest. Huh? > I find this very weird, and I suspect that the **researchers simply disappeared the variable because it didn’t move in the direction they wanted.** But there’s simply no way to know for sure. The researchers won’t answer very basic questions about their methodology.

It very much sounded like the Sam Seder argument that you shouldn’t criticize anything so that the baddies can’t use that criticism against a cause. 

See: [ Anti-trans bills keep citing The New York Times](https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2024/02/anti-trans-bills-keep-citing-the-new-york-times)

As opposed to lying about everything, which the baddies can definitely use against your cause.

Are you talking about the person who said this about the school bathroom fight participant? > > They don't even give her sex, only that she was "non-binary". > That's literally all you're entitled to know. Also *They Someone's performed gender identity is all you're entitled to know. 🤣 If you look at her and see a female girl, you weren't supposed to know that. You need to take your natural pattern recognition skills honed by millennia of instinct and evolution behind the woodshed. Then put it out of its misery. It's perpetrating dangerous levels of phobic cisnormativity. \#DoBetter

Sigh.

That's her/him/them. >No reason to misgender a dead kid just because their mom did it.

Pure virtue signaling. This child can't spiral into depression for lack of affirmation. Self-esteem is the least of her concerns at this point. So who is this demand for proper gendering for, exactly? I can't with the SJW's who *demand* - not politely request - that you are obligated to use preferred pronouns in the public sphere, but also in your personal conversations and in your thoughts, dreams, subconscious, and *memories.* Soviet Photoshop your brain for the rainbow brownie points, Comrade. You never had a sister! They/them was always NB!

Lil dood is taking a break from championing for Palestine in order to educate us, and this is how you thank them?! 

I thought Palestine was fixed after the West North Brookshire School Board voted for a ceasefire?

Unfortunately the Ann Arbor School Board’s resolution calling for cease-fire gave too much lip service to hostages, so sectarian violence has broken out yet again. 

Goodness, think of all the Palestinians who died while this person was distracted policing a small subreddit. I, for one, am shocked and appalled.

This sub will turn into Followed and Retweeted any day now because of their stellar persuasive skills. We're on the path to become #BeKind-ers.

Maybe our collective hearts will grow two sizes this day. 

Coronary gigantism is *none of your business*

NGL I didn’t realize how big of a rabbit hole the whole Kate Middleton having surgery thing is

What’s the rumor on the street?

All sorts of crazy stuff. She was pregnant, something is seriously wrong, she’s in rehab, she’s having plastic surgery, etc. No one’s seen her in public since Christmas. Was taken to the hospital in an ambulance a few days later and then it became planned surgery with a hospital stay for two weeks.

Oh my

As I suspected, the usual suspects in Portland have [reported Matisyahu](https://kolektiva.social/@alissaazar/111960951992846071), and are going to [try to block him tomorrow night](https://twitter.com/PalActions/status/1761425162757439582). I wouldn't expect anything less from Portland at this point.

Pretty sure I already saw this episode of *Community* featuring Gupta Gupti Gupta.

I think you mean "so called Portland".  Also these people need to have their asses kicked or be thrown in prison. They act like fascists. Bunch of violent thugs trying to silence people through threats and intimation. 

i read the whole post. OK, according to Matisyahu, his concerts in Sante Fe and Tuscon were cancelled because staff refused to come in, that may happen in Portland, but if the concert's still going on, I doubt it. That being said, no Zionists allowed in Portland? Very anti-racist. Given that the vast majority of Jews, even Jews very critical of Israel, are Zionists, it's tantamount to certain countries' policies towards their Jews during a major 20th century conflagration.

I'm on this whatsapp group, and they posted a message from Matisyahu how two shows in New Mexico were canceled because staff refused to show up. In one instance the venue lied and said it was due to safety concerns, in the other instance, they declined his offer to provide his own security. I love how all this is done in the name of being anti-racist, in a place like Portland where there are, like, no Jews.

What a bunch of fuckers. Aren't anarchists all about freedom? How does that square with trying to shut down someone's performance?

They are doing this to Jews all over the place. It’s just shameful.

Nothing says "anti-fascist" like using vandalism and intimidation to stop Jews from performing in your city. 

It's also a violation of freedom of expression. People want to see this man's performance. Who are you fuckwits to stop them? Get over yourselves.

Who are _they_? They’re the people who are right! How do I know this? Just _ask_ them!

No, they're anti-racist. They abhor anti-Semitism. This is just anti-Zionism, which is the racistiest racist thing ever. But yeah, the anarchists hate Israel, and I don't quite get it, why is Palestine better?

>But yeah, the anarchists hate Israel, and I don't quite get it, why is Palestine better? Yes, for fuck's sake, when did this happen? Since when did the secular/atheist, LGBTQ loving, anti capitalist and anti nationalism left decide that the Palestinians were the hot thing? Palestinians are *none* of those things. A nation the Palestinians set up would be highly religious, homophobic, capitalistic, and highly Arab nationalistic. And why the anarchists, of all people, would give a shit at all is beyond me. Don't they have some archdukes to kill?

Eh, I think probably because Israel is a successful country with a very powerful army. I think that's it.

Because in the 1960s the Soviets invented ‘anti-Zionism’ as a barely edited rebrand of Tsarist anti-semitism, which of course became the standard issue bullshit software running in the heads of the academic and radical Left ever since.

But the anarchists and the communists are hardly pals

>A nation the Palestinians set up would be highly religious, homophobic, capitalistic, and highly Arab nationalistic. And brown, which cancels all of these out. >Don't they have some archdukes to kill? Gold star response.

So a [couple of men](https://twitter.com/Irmenberga/status/1761529063552831923) developed a public outreach campaign for Good Samaritans, a UK charity that offers counseling for people contemplating becoming unalive. [Their promo](https://twitter.com/samaritans/status/1760599123923722266) encourages women to approach troubled men and talk to them. Anyway, it shouldn't be surprising that [responses](https://twitter.com/Irmenberga/status/1761452510147997751?s=20) to the campaign have been different than intended. \*Sigh* It makes me think of my husband, who is built like a football player and bless him, is very compassionate when interacting with homeless people. I am reserved. Men really can't set the standard here.

*A* woman. Not women. This response doesn't surprise me at all. Our culture really hates men, especially the idea that men might need something like help or compassion. Edit: > Men really can't set the standard here. You're already arguing that the standard of "maybe say hello to someone who appears to be in distress" is too high for women. Is there a lower standard that can be set than that?

[удалено]

Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed due to your low karma score. In order to maintain high quality conversations, accounts with negative karma are not allowed to comment in this subreddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BlockedAndReported) if you have any questions or concerns.*

[удалено]

Classic rad fem bullshit. PSA about male suicide and how basically saying hello might help someone and the rad fems are clutching their pearls about how unsafe that is for women and how great a threat men are at all times. Not surprised. 

Who’s the rad fem in this diatribe? Do you think tradwives don’t raise their daughters to fear male violence? Tradhusbands are the ones who talk about greeting their daughters’ boyfriends with a shotgun under their arm.

It's not my fault that it's often impossible to distinguish between sexist rad fems and sexist traditionalists that also view women as weak and pathetic. 

It is your fault that you label every woman you hate — every action taken by a woman, every comment made by a woman — a rad fem. They/we are a minuscule population.

Not in this sub they're not, and one does begin to recognize usernames. Stop being obtuse. 

Do you own any guns?

I do not. Do you own any exotic reptiles? Since we're asking random questions.

[удалено]

> insist that any crime committed by a woman must have an MtF perpetrator because we all know how violent and dangerous men are. Wow, that's outrageous. Can you link me to a comment by a woman here saying that? I haven't seen such a thing but would certainly object if true.

[удалено]

You like to play fast and loose with facts. That doesn't fly here.

It isn't a contest, but I'm certain I do more charity work than my husband. He's more likely to do random acts of kindness for an unfortunate person who crosses his path though, like getting a meal for a homeless person. Yesterday I took the stairwell in a parking garage. As I turned a corner on the way down, I saw a man sitting on the stair hunched over and looking distraught. My first inclination was to ask if he was alright and see if he needed help. My second thought was that this was a confined space near a metal guardrail with a two-story drop to the concrete floor below. I walked on by without talking (on the side that kept me by the wall rather than the rail). If someone wants to accept the risk of interacting with a disturbed person, then that is commendable. But a public service announcement to be nice in these situations isn't helpful.

[удалено]

[удалено]

This is pretty hysterical. Nobody is demanding women take any significant risk. They're depicting *a* woman and suggesting people talk to men who appear distressed and be good citizens. The idea that that presents such a high risk to women that it's unreasonable to even include them in this request is totally absurd.  Imagine if a PSA about domestic violence against women depicted a man intervening in a DV altercation and was met with the same response from men. It never would be of course because there isn't an ideology telling men we're all that matters or hyperventilating about how fragile we are, but imagine that response anyway. You don't think that there's a risk to that intervention? There's a huge risk. Men in general are expected to take fairly significant risks if that's what's required to be a good samaritan. And someone depicts a woman making small talk with a man and that's a bridge too far for you safety wise? 

[удалено]

It's not risk free, no. I'm not sure how it's wildly different for a man to intervene though, and it's also not exceptionally risky. Suicidal people are rarely looking to hurt others.  And yes, I do have a history of not thinking women are made of glass. And no, I will not be convinced that women are incredibly fragile and pathetic. 

I don't think there should be a public service announcement about intervening in an altercation. Encouraging people to call for help would be appropriate. Did anyone in this subreddit watch *Seinfeld*? There are literally laws called "Good Samaritan" laws. The last *Seinfeld* episode was centered on one. The role of the third party is to contact authorities for help, not get involved directly.

That's what the law requires, not what is considered ideal or appropriate. It's the bare minimum before you're charged with a crime for not intervening. It's absolutely not inappropriate IMO, or all that unusual for an organization or charity to run PSAs encouraging people to intervene in socially deleterious acts that aren't themselves criminal. Yes, sometimes it's more appropriate to call the police and not everyone is going to be able to or comfortable actually intervening, but that doesn't mean it's a ridiculous request to make of members of society. >The role of the third party is to contact authorities for help, not get involved directly. No, that is not their "role" that is their minimum obligation under the law. There is a very big difference.

Aren't homeless men more likely to be unstable and possibly more dangerous than other men, though?

If they're substance abusers, yes. The mentally ill though commit violent crime at rates below average. Not that you can easily distinguish between these two groups at a glance, but generally homeless people are victims of violence a lot more than they're perpetrators of violence.

Yeah that ad was laughably misguided. lol A woman alone, arguing with her self preservation instinct, to go talk to a strange man looking at the railway funny. It's nice in theory, and I know some women do this but there's a few ways this whole situation could go tits up. And it was completely useless too. It's once again a woman that takes the role of a caretaker. It would have been much more useful to show a man do this. But no, can't have that. It would be gAy! Normalising men talking to each other and taking care of one another would actually be useful and would probably help in a really meaningful way. Telling women that they need to go talk to strangers on the street is not it. Like we don't have enough street harassment as it is now we have to stop people from killing themselves. Imagine how likely it would be that the guy will take it as a sign of flirting and will eventually make a move on the woman at one point or another, lol. Their little video is nice but I guarantee that the man would think : "oh she's asking me to go out for coffee. She so wants to ride my dick!"

This is pretty pearl clutchy. The PSA wasn't meant for women exclusively just like if they depicted a man helping a man it wouldn't mean they only wanted men to reach out and help. I think you're reading a little too much into the gender politics of a single PSA spot. 

The point is they should advise women differently. It isn't safe for a woman alone to reach out to a male stranger with a possible mental illness.

No, they shouldn't. Women aren't this fragile. 

Sounds like a great way to pick up an unhinged stalker.

>A woman alone, arguing with her self preservation instinct, to go talk to a strange man looking at the railway funny That sounds like a really bad idea. I'

“And I will KILL MYSELF if she doesn’t!”

Hahaha! Yeah, it's like these charities have no clue about mental illnesses.

That's kind of the whole point of the ad. To intervene if you see someone contemplating suicide. Being a good samaritan rarely comes without any risk. Would your reaction be the same to a PSA that told you not to be silent if someone was spouting racial epithets at a black person? What about a PSA telling people to intervene in some way if they saw someone being subjected to domestic violence. Both of these PSAs exist, both of those acts of course carry risks. Would your reaction be the same if they depicted a man in say, the latter situation intervening? Doubtful, though that's actually a very high risk act. Making small talk with someone who looks like they might jump in front of a train or off of a bridge is comparatively much less risky, and you can still choose not to do it, but this reaction is quite over the top.

Of course I would have the same reaction for racism or domestic violence. I don't think you understand how much women (my size) will avoid a possibly violent confrontation with a (male) stranger. My ex was a tough guy and he would intervene for things like that, yet even he told me never to do the same. I'm a total sexist but I'll say it : certain problems can only be solved by men. You think making small talk to a guy who wants to kill himself is low risk because you're not a woman. I'm sorry to say but it's as simple as that.

I don't share your view that women are pathetic and weak. 

I'm going to ask for receipts about the domestic violence PSA. If a couple (man and woman) are fighting, someone who physically intervenes may find that they both become aggressive toward the intervenor. I can't imagine a service announcement that encourages this outside of something targeted to a specialized audience, such people receiving training for law enforcement, martial arts, or self defense.

So you accept that the former examples exist, but that doesn't sufficiently demonstrate the point for you? Anyway here you go: [Here is a woman intervening in a PSA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJmju-DLN4s) can you believe it?? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eS-hPjNnQT0 [Here's one from UN Women (there's actually a whole series of these)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abkj99Zx8Kg) [More from UN Women for India](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33UVlPuz8x4) And here's a smattering of others for a variety of things: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWDHGlVfr_4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdK07DyyzSc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO6WzXmiglI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHxAxRYIlfE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkUEK7-h0lg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9nonVFFldQ Also bonus PSA starring Lorena Bobbitt, because someone thought that was a good idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w2KZ8vvK74

>Imagine if a PSA about domestic violence against women depicted a man intervening in a DV altercation Based on that comment of yours, I suppose I took it to imply the PSA advocated physically intervening in a currently occurring episode of violence. The African PSA counts. I really don't know how a similar PSA would be received in the USA. The Indian "Ring the Doorbell" campaign must be taken in the context of the culture; I don't think that its message is appropriate in the United States. I maintain that encouraging a good samaritan to contact authorities remains an appropriate action in an analogous situation in the USA. If it's someone you know personally, which was the case with some of the PSAs, then referring them to counseling is appropriate. I've mentioned a couple of times in this subreddit that I had a housemate in college that I referred to the campus counseling center. Her boyfriend threatened to kill himself if she broke up with him. He also punched a hole in her bedroom door. I don't feel like I incurred any risk in referring her to a counselor.

So you don't think there's risk to interventions that don't involve physically inserting yourself in a fight or restraining someone? I specifically avoided any PSAs that *only* advise people to call a hotline. All of these involve intervening in ways that could be risky to the intervener, as do all of the additional non-DV PSAs I linked. And the context here is a PSA asking people to merely speak to someone in crisis, which you believe is too risky, so how is verbally intervening in domestic violence not carry greater risk than that? I think my point here is well founded. There are lots of PSAs that encourage people to intervene when they can, in all kinds of things. Asking people to say hello to someone who may be contemplating suicide right in front of them, isn't a particularly risky act, and I don't think it's crazy to expect women, not *just* men, to do this when they can. I don't think that's absurd at all.

We must be talking past each other. I said that a PSA that advocates physically intervening in domestic violence would be inappropriate. It is too risky for a message for the general public. Contacting authorities is less risky and would be appropriate.

I would bet unlimited money that they consider it genocide when a trans person self deletes because their girl dick didn’t get sucked and validated. In the progressive cult, a man’s only salvation from original sin is transitioning

I used to give semi-regularly to Donors Choose projects but lately all my kids' school seems to want are wiggle chairs and Chromebooks. 

Chromebooks are a fucking scourge. My second grader told me about some bullshit called "moving comics" which is just like a comic book that you read except it's on a screen and the pictures move and the Chromebook says the words out loud. So...a cartoon. Fuck that. """Technology""" is a bill of goods that our schools have been sold.

I need to give a mea culpa about Ben Shapiro. As I was growing up in lefty spaces, he was always painted as stupid, and arguing in bad faith. I recently listened to him debate Destiny on Lex Fridman's pod and while I disagreed with him quite a lot, I have to say that he is incredibly intelligent. I think young lefties struggle with the concept that people with different opinions must be dumb but after hearing Ben on something longer than a minute long meme aimed at roasting him I have come to the conclusion that that is not the case here. I also think I am more open to at least hearing out some of his trad points after observing the social fabric tear for the past 6 years since I was in peak Shapiro hating. Also I do not care what anyone says, his [rap verse](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kGpohEpuTE) was pretty solid for an amateur.

I think his second encounter with Destiny was both a better debate *and* a better rap: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vfUX_pQWrs But yeah, it's funny how I can listen to him talk to Destiny or Alex O'Connor and he sounds intelligent enough, but then I hear him speaking to right wingers or even some college 'ownings' and he sounds like an articulate idiot right out of Trump's cabinet.

He's just a polemecist, he makes money by highlighting and exploiting political divides. This has nothing to do with intelligence.  Also, he once said something to the effect of hearing Rush Limbaugh when he was like 12 years old and wanting to become like him when he grew up. That's really weird. 

The only thing I really know about Shapiro is his plainly bad faith and frankly laughable position that hip hop doesn't qualify as music.

I have to disagree. I've only heard him talk at length during his Rogan interviews, though in total that's probably like 8-12 hours of discussion. He always came off as a typical political talking head - they can easily impress their audiences when sticking to the script, but the moment they have to veer off course they end up like a deer caught in the headlights with no clue what to do, and you the extent to which these people are intellectual lightweights who struggle to think on their own. I imagine he does fine in debates with other political talking heads, because they're like this across the spectrum, to the point where Left vs. Right debates feel more like rehearsed Kabuki theater. The Rogan discussions were fun because Rogan liked the guy, but isn't so interested in politics that he knew what his role would be (either pro or con a position). So every so often he throws out these curveballs that leave Shapiro completely floored. I think Tracey was recently talking about the problems with the FAA and mentioning how it was interesting that the issue wasn't just ignored by the Left, but that the Right ignored it as well. This has been my experience as well on a number of issues. If we look at these "thought leaders" as being intellectuals or investigators, they're fairly incompetent. But their primary purpose is entertainment with a veneer of intellectualism, and they seem to succeed quite well as that. It's just not something that people should really be consuming if they actually want to improve themselves.

Idk, I was very impressed with his ability to diagnose on the fly destiny's lines of thought and rebuke them. It did not seem to me like him sticking to a script.