Non profit gamblers would be awesome - like all gambling proceeds go to addiction recovery services… emphasis on gambling addiction.
I do think if gambling was outlawed completely it would still happen - fewer people involved but likely more associated violence. I would 1000% support gambling only being available via not for profit companies.
Is there any justification in folks selling crap unhealthy junk food? It has any number of ingredients that are harmful to humans short and long term. It is addicting and habit forming. The health consequences on a macro level hurt society.
There are any number of sometimes pleasurable but undeniably harmful things sold for a profit. I’m not saying I think gambling should be legal, but I am pointing out that it’s a slippery slope re: what crosses the line?
I don’t spend money on gambling but I do sometimes spend money on other things I know are bad for me. Is the answer to outlaw unhealthy things?
It’s not just the capitalists that want to make money - there are people who WANT to gamble. Make it illegal it will still happen - just without regulation. Prohibition didn’t work.
They for sure create targeted advertising towards likely repeat-spend customers. Big box liquor stores I’m sure use algorithms to encourage repeat purchases.
Again - not defending predatory gambling sites at all - just aware that almost every business model is about targeting big spenders and getting them to spend more. Example: micro transactions in gaming.
“Everyone does it” doesn’t make it ok, but if we don’t like that gambling sites care more about profit than the wellbeing of users? Certainly they are not alone in that.
I mean gambling is shitty but we don’t hold folks that make alcohol responsible for folks getting addicted to alcohol.
I’m not familiar with legal gambling, but theoretically there is a percentage of users that partake casually for fun - yes? And others who get addicted. Same with booze.
Obviously the overall experience of gambling is more predatory/distasteful, but I’m not sure that means they should be legally responsible for the folks who get addicted. If the booze makers and sellers are not responsible for providing a potentially addictive product, why are they?
Agree completely- I adore people who are excited about anything and tell me about it with enthusiasm!
That said - it needs to be mutual. Awesome for you to lecture me on your passions - but it’s not a fun relationship for me if you aren’t also eager to hear about the things I want to share.
Right. They MEANT “if you mention Claude I don’t trust anything else you said”.
They just didn’t SAY that.
I’m not a fan of AI and don’t use it - however I can’t say I have found humans to be particularly clear, accurate or reliable either. Myself included… we all make mistakes. 🙂
So what you meant to say was “if you claim that you legitimately researched but you mention Claude - I will assume you did not”.
Which is valid. But is not what you said.
I use dashes constantly (way more than I should I’m sure) and always have - and I am in my mid 50s. Low key worried that folks will think I’m using AI so now I’m self conscious about them.
Judging or dismissing a PERSON for using tools you don’t respect = valid.
Saying you “invalidate” content that is “properly researched and legitimately correct” = what?
I mean most people have no idea how to “properly research” - this has been true for centuries - sloppy research is not a new phenomenon. If something was “properly researched” why would you reject it?
I mean Disney’s lawyer game is top notch. I would love to see the mouse vs AI battle.