The same amount of dumb you have to be to be “god fearing” and think that a treasonous, lying, cheating, adulterous, rapist of an orange baboon is some sort of messiah

I’m the same way! I thought most people preferred the multiple POV style but i completely agree with you.

In addition to having to adjust to a new POV, I absolutely hate that when you finally find yourself invested in a certain POV, the author switches POVs again.

Braiding makes it look extra delicious

Yep, this seems like the exact kind of thing companies would enforce with MDM.

I know one of my previous companies would enforce certain settings were changed if you wanted to install the MDM profile on a BYOD phone (like minimum 8 digit PIN), so requiring you to opt out of OpenAI Siri integration seems like a policy MDMs would offer.

(Though I would never install a company’s MDM profile on my personal phone lol - if they want me to be accessible and have work apps, they can provide a separate work phone)

This describes my pea brain to the letter.

Like once I figure out how to do a thing, I no longer have anything interest in doing the thing.

What makes this more hilarious is that he did a fake-ass apology after all the allegations came out. This move makes it even more abundantly clear that he isn’t actually sorry.

deleted by creator

I wish I could think and articulate this clearly all the time.

Right and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with not being neutral in that case. The original commenter said it’s “neutral corpo-speak” which I disagree with. Corporations would be all wishy washy or intentionally vague as you mentioned.

I don’t think of “politically neutral” and objective as synonymous. I think of politically neutral as attempting to appease or not piss of any sides. Being objective will often piss off one side (and we all know which side that is).

ChatGPT doesn’t actually give you a neutral answer lol. It flat out tells you climate change is real.

Edit: Just to be clear since it seems people are misunderstanding: I agree with ChatGPT. I don’t see objectivity and being neutral as being synonymous. And not being neutral in this case imo is a good thing. You shouldn’t be neutral if a side is clearly stupid and (as another user put it) is the enemy of objective data.

My gf is a trainer who does board and trains and it’s quite effective but only if everyone at home with the dog follows instructions and the rules suggested for the dog.

A dog will be great with us but will regress very quickly if the family doesn’t stick to the structure provided. And the new structure and rules are especially important once the dog is back home because when they go back home, they think they can go back to their old behaviors.

And finally, if it’s a purely positive training, then it absolutely will not work for cases like this.

A lot of purely positive are against “balance” training where we use tools like eCollars and prong collars and will correct the dog. They claim it’s abusive and conflate eCollars with shock collars (two very different things and you absolutely should be against shock collars). But on the flip side, they’re okay with putting down dogs like this.

I could go on forever, but you really want a balanced trainer who is willing to use tools, but not one of those super macho trainers who borderline abuse dogs.

eCollars, prong collars, kennel training and proper balanced training save dog (and possibly human) lives.

Around 4 years ago we got a “problem” dog that’s worse than yours from a shelter and he’s been fine with the tools and the structure we put in place and he’s living a great life.

So tldr: find the right trainer, follow the rules and you should be fine. But if you slip up with the structure and get loose with the rules, the dog can start regressing.