Dollars? That seems optimistic to me. It would probably be an amount comparable to the change you’d find on the ground in a parking lot.
If you’re an extremely active user who has no life, and posts all day every day, then we might be talking dollars. Perhaps even double digits over the course of a year!
Done. Best of luck with your study! Now I’m curious. I hope you consider sharing the results with us!
It’s Fortune magazine, that’s why.
Lol read the reply from @Ropianos. It’s good.
A redditor would try to hide their gross opinion behind a thin veneer of logic. I’m not getting into the ethics of porn at all.
I’m just talking about phrasing. I think “thirst” is a poor analogy.
I just think the word “thirst” is a bad choice, that’s all.
I think words like “thirsty” and “thirst trap” are self defeating. Actual thirst is your body’s biological response to a need for water. Without water, you’ll die. Calling porn sites “thirst traps” suggests that people have a critical need for porn - which is often contrary to the point the author is trying to make.
Arguing about the ethics or morality of something that’s “necessary” for survival is irrelevant. Anyone who’s against pornography is perfectly within their rights to share their opinion, but they should avoid the word “thirst”.
Edit: I know the issue of pornography can evoke strong feelings in some, but I’m only talking about word choice, folks.
I’m also not one of those tiresome people people who refuses to admit that they’re wrong, and acts like a child when faced with sound opposition. If someone would actually put their opinion into words, instead of just downvoting, I’d appreciate it.
The problem is that you’d need an objective, unbiased, incorruptible review process. I have zero faith that any government is capable of providing such a thing, particularly in a situation like this, where there’s so much room for interpretation.
Selecting an arbitrary age has its own problems, but at least it’s much simpler and harder to argue with.
I’m glad I read this article. I started out thinking that AI generated work didn’t deserve a copyright, but the comparison with early photography changed my mind. Artists have much more influence on AI generated images than I gave them credit for.
The edit made me laugh. Plus, your comment was worth reading anyway!
Never thought of comparing the war on drugs to prohibition… and prohibition is what created the environment for organized crime to thrive in the US. Damn.
Hey, close enough!
How much of a role does the US play here? Does Washington actively keep Mexico weak, or do they simply watch and not help?
To an imperialistic outsider, Mexico seems to be in that “sweet spot” of being too weak to present any kind of military or economic challenge, but just stable enough to avoid collapsing into total anarchy. They’re readily exploitable, but non-threatening.
Selective “free speech absolutism” at work.
Clearly garbage, but gif of either of those guys dancing could be awesome.
TIL that Dancing with the Stars still exists.
If anyone needs another example of why centralized social media is dangerous, here’s one.
That excuse only goes so far, though. Some aspects of her public image may just be an act, but she’s doing real harm.
At first, the story was just funny and pathetic, but it just got better.
Also, her “companion” should have higher standards.
Remember this example of tactical brilliance the next time you hear some right wing asshole talking about a second civil war.