Mandatory for the time being. They can change the directive if they deem it necessary in case of new tech.
Hedgehawk
joined 3 years ago
I wouldn't call them obscure. Their hair products are very well known. Hoping they aren't as popular anymore, but I don't have that kind of trust in people...
This. In general it refers to social awkwardness related to autism. Heard it used mostly as a slur/insult where I live.
I have the kind of super long and thick hair that gets attention. Most of the compliments I like. I did after all use a lot of effort and time growing and taking care of it.
Once, at work, I got approached by a guy with a fetish for long, reddish hair. He proceeded to tell me how great of a boyfriend he'd be, how he'd wash and brush and take such good care of my hair. I was disgusted. And that disgust got associated with my hair. It took a couple of days for that disgust to fade and during it I did not like my hair.
If that kind of shit happened often I'd totally see myself cutting the hair off.
And some automation I have no problems with. However, if corporations would rather use AI than hire creatives, the creatives will have to look for other work and likely won't have a space to express their creativity, not at work nor during leisure time (no time, exhaustion, etc.). Something should be done so it doesn't go there. Preemptively. Not after everything's gone to shit. I don't see the people defending AI from the copyright stuff even acknowledging the issue. Holding up the copyright card, currently, is the easiest way to try an avoid this happening.
The reality is that people hate the corporations using creative peoples works to try and make their jobs basically obsolete and they grab onto anything to fight against it, even if it's a bit of a stretch.
I'd hate a world lacking real human creativity.
Instagram costs around 12€/month if you don't agree to targeted ads (EU).