331–340 of 520 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This just straight up doesn't make sense to me—states aren't monolithic entities or rational actors. I think it's easier to say that the modern state exists at the behest of capital, at least in the west.
States are rational actors though
There is absolutely nothing rational about terraforming your own planet to make it less able to support you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Language should be adequate to the context of a conversation. If you were writing a legal document, or some policy for a kindergarten it might make sense to make that distinction, but this is a public forum with many non-native speakers. Child-raiser is a concept pretty much all of us are familiar with and if you say child-raisers we'll understand you mean people using the service because they care for young kids.
child-riser is a lovely neologism, more self-explanatory than caretaker, but still caretaker is well established. and to clarify: I chuckled with sympathy reading your response :-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only people experiencing offense here seem to be the ones who don't like the term child raiser for some reason.
For one, I have never heard the term "child raiser" in my life so I assume its even more confusing for those with english as a second language. It also just sounds so emotionless, like children are cattle. I'm really struggling to see what is gained by not using parent. For all intents and purposes, people use the term parent for those raising a child.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was certainly executive-level pricing :) To answer your question, I don't know. The wait list was well over a year, and it was many many times more expensive than other childcare options in the Mountain View area, and utterly unaffordable for me on a senior SRE salary.
> to know that the cost and difficulty of arranging childcare is one of the things that drives people to exit the workplace and become stay-at-home parents, or perhaps part-timers in a less 'all-in' place than google. oh got it. Top comment made it sound like it was cheap/free of cost
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Language should be adequate to the context of a conversation. If you were writing a legal document, or some policy for a kindergarten it might make sense to make that distinction, but this is a public forum with many non-native speakers. Parents is a concept pretty much all of us are familiar with and if you say parents we'll understand you mean people using the service because they care for young kids.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only people experiencing offense here seem to be the ones who don't like the term child raiser for some reason.
For one, I have never heard the term "child raiser" in my life so I assume its even more confusing for those with english as a second language. It also just sounds so emotionless, like children are cattle. I'm really struggling to see what is gained by not using parent. For all intents and purposes, people use the term parent for those raising a child.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure whether you think I'm being unfair to Google or to OpenAI. Everybody and their brother sued Google early on for a huge variety of their products. Google News got sued for showing headlines from news websites. Google Books got sued for copyright violations for, y'know, making a copy of everybody's books. Back in 2007, Google would've been in the middle of the the Viacom vs YouTube lawsuit. The whole idea…
I think the characterization is unfair to generative AI, because the information that is retained in the model is a very lossy and rough generalization of the training data - that situation is a lot less direct than what it's like with search engines. In my mind, the lawsuits against search engines have a lot more ground to stand on. Saying that something "provides access to copyrighted content" almost implies that t…
I agree that Google should have been forced to pay licensing fees, and OpenAI should too.
We know from history that's unlikely to happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
child-riser is a lovely neologism, more self-explanatory than caretaker, but still caretaker is well established. and to clarify: I chuckled with sympathy reading your response :-)
It's not that it's bad neologism. It's that neologism is bad in general. :-)