Yes, that is not what the word "originally" meant, yes it is ~~partially~~ completely the result of right wing propaganda, yes "political correctness" and "sjw" have similar issues

Fixed it for you.

It is a common conservative tactic, taking the language of something meant to improve the lives of minorities in some way and turning it into a negative thing. As you said, they did it with "politically correct" in the 90s, "social justice warrior" in the late 2000s, "woke" in the 2010s, and are currently working on "DEI." It's how they control the narrative and normalize their hatred. And it's why Tim Walz calling them "weird" was so effective and why they got so upset by it - and why I'll never forgive the Democrats for muzzling him when we finally had a weapon to fight back against this insidious colonialism of language.

The fact that you believe that there's a middle ground where the definition isn't an attack on minorities means that they've succeeded in shifting the Overton Window and you've become used to the hatred yourself. Every single one of those terms that you mentioned was redefined for the sole purpose of being used to attack anybody who dared to openly talk about being a minority or exist as a minority.

The "woke" are as real as the "blue haired girls with pronouns SJW getting off the 'Down With CIS' bus and assaulting people" of 15 years ago, and the token representation that you're talking about is what's known as "rainbow capitalism," not "woke."

"Self-righteous, superficial, performative, and preachy" are the exact words used to describe a gay man daring to exist in public or talk about being gay in any way and not hide away like Section 28 and Don't Ask, Don't Tell are still in effect. That's what "woke" means when used under the new definition: a minority dared to openly behave like a minority in public and not be ashamed of it.

No? I agree with you on the radar. This other comment was simply about repeatedly stating that "the US is not the whole world." Nobody ever said that it was or implied some kind of US-centric worldview/behavior. The other commenter merely stated who the regulatory body is who would be involved in yelling at you for turning on the radar equivalent of a fog horn if you were in the US, probably because those are the laws and regulations that they're familiar with.

Near something important? Yeah, you're most likely getting a hasty visit from the local MPs. But outside of those areas, you're going to get chewed out by a government branch like the FCC in the US or the ANFR in France.

But saying that isn't me saying that "France is the whole world" or something. I just happen to know what part of the French government is involved in regulating radio frequencies in the country.

Living near military installations would be the big exception. I live probably about 20 miles from a massive radar facility that can track planes from across the Atlantic ocean, and doing anything within the area to set something like that off would probably have the MPs knocking on your door long before anybody else. I think even flying drones above a certain height isn't allowed for miles around.

They never implied that the US is the whole world. They merely mentioned what I assume is the regulatory body that they're familiar with.

If I said that the regulatory body who would be knocking on your door in France is ANFR (L'agence nationale des fréquence), would you complain about how France isn't the whole world?

I get that we're all sick of American-centrism, but that was a really benign comment. They have no way of knowing what your country's regulatory agency is offhand.

I think there's a cliff between affordability/knowledge and payload capacity that has kept this from being practical. Then there's the traceability aspect. Where and how you buy it, how it's controlled, etc. A drone controlled by a smart phone can be traced back to that phone, for example.

A drone is far cheaper than a missile, but the military can drop thousands on a drone and not blink an eye. That's not something that's practical for the average person, and the skills required to build one are also at the higher end of hobbyist level skills. It's similar to 3d printed equipment. 3d printed guns are a thing, but it's generally easier to go buy some PVC pipe for a barrel and a nail for a firing pin. Or just buy a gun, they're about the price of RAM nowadays. People have even printed RPGs and man portable anti-air/anti-armor missile launchers, but it's not something even your average skilled hobbyist can do.

The day somebody makes a flying pressure cooker out of an R/C car, though, all bets are off.

Yeah, and guns don't kill people. People kill people!

Related:

They would, but UHC deemed it unnecessary care and denied their claim.

The Muskrat is the reason why I can't even feel good about anything SpaceX does. Every time they do something to propel space exploration forward, all I can think about is how he and his cronies are going to use it to privatize space for profits.

The argument that these models learn in a way that's similar to how humans do is absolutely false, and the idea that they discard their training data and produce new content is demonstrably incorrect. These models can and do regurgitate their training data, including copyrighted characters.

And these things don't learn styles, techniques, or concepts. They effectively learn statistical averages and patterns and collage them together. I've gotten to the point where I can guess what model of image generator was used based on the same repeated mistakes that they make every time. Take a look at any generated image, and you won't be able to identify where a light source is because the shadows come from all different directions. These things don't understand the concept of a shadow or lighting, they just know that statistically lighter pixels are followed by darker pixels of the same hue and that some places have collections of lighter pixels. I recently heard about an ai that scientists had trained to identify pictures of wolves that was working with incredible accuracy. When they went in to figure out how it was identifying wolves from dogs like huskies so well, they found that it wasn't even looking at the wolves at all. 100% of the images of wolves in its training data had snowy backgrounds, so it was simply searching for concentrations of white pixels (and therefore snow) in the image to determine whether or not a picture was of wolves or not.

I saw some context for this, and the short of it is that headline writers want you to hate click on articles.

What the article is actually about is that there's tons of solar panels now but not enough infrastructure to effectively limit/store/use the power at peak production, and the extra energy in the grid can cause damage. Damage to the extent of people being without power for months.

California had a tax incentive program for solar panels, but not batteries, and because batteries are expensive, they're in a situation now where so many people put panels on their houses but no batteries to store excess power that they can't store the power when it surpasses demand, so the state is literally paying companies to run their industrial stoves and stuff just to burn off the excess power to keep the grid from being destroyed.

Are Millennials hating on Gen Z? I always thought our attitude was more like this:

Also, love how this skips Gen X. Always the forgotten generation.