Calling the police on someone for smoking on their own balcony isn't wrong?

That's a wild mindset.

Are you saying that they shouldn't mark it NSFW?

If not, you can always choose to say nothing.

And, the plan for sleeping...?

Reunions often involve travel.

You're leading with two questions, here... and it kind of looks like an attempt to frame this as though I'm the one making assumptions. But I want to backtrack to how we got here, real quick:

Someone: Airbnb makes sense for a lot of people under one roof, like for a family reunion.

You: It's cheaper to rent an event space.

Yeah, sure, your commentary about sharing hotel rooms and amenities and group packages and blah blah might be relevant, but that's not what you said. You just said to get an event space. That doesn't have any information in it about where people are actually supposed to stay and sleep, which is what an Airbnb is for.

The comparison of Airbnb to Event Space doesn't make sense without all of that other stuff, at which point it all very much depends on all of these other factors like headcounts and group rates, so unless you're making a bunch of extra assumptions, you don't actually know which solution is cheaper.

Oh shit.

That's a good guess, actually.

Do all three.

Stupidity is colorblind.

Finally, AI is actually offering performance gains.

That's the French public. They're already doing this, without this article's influence.

Ask a random English-speaking person (because this article is in English) about austerity measures, and half of the time, their first response will be to look up the definition. What will they find?

After they look up the definition, ask if they would support austerity measures, without being specific. What will they say?

If you instead ask them if they would support slashing the education budget, do you think they would say something different?

We don't have to play this game where they slash the education budget and then dress it up with flowery language to make it more marketable, or to avoid accountability.

In practice, stripping funding from education and healthcare and poverty prevention is irresponsible, I agree. Those specific austerity measures are irresponsible.

And yet, people still use the term on purpose. Why? Because it's easy to sell to the public by saying, "It's just responsible money management," with the followup benefit that "Anyone opposed to this austerity measure is opposed to responsible money management."

They're bullshitting the public by covering up their intentions with language that is marketable. That's my point. If you agree that this is a "rebellion against austerity", you're giving the propagandists what they need to turn public opinion against the thing that these protesters stand for.

We both know that the word is used by liberals in government to justify cutting very SPECIFIC things.

That's true. Why do they do that? Why do they use a very general word, which could mean a variety of good or bad things, and then exclusively do bad things with it?

... is it because it's in their best interest to cover up their evil intentions with a term that might convince the general public that it's a good idea?

And... if that were the case... should we be playing along with it by framing our opposition to a very specific budget cut, as an opposition to a very general thing that the general public might believe is a good thing?

My position is that framing education budget cuts as "austerity measures" is giving them the benefit of the doubt, and allowing them to strip away even the crumbs allocated to the poor, while maintaining plausible deniability that it was all in the name of saving the budget. I reject that framing. I reject the headline.

As I mentioned, cutting defense spending or increasing corporate taxes are also austerity measures. Presumably you're not opposed to those.

Some austerity measures kill people. Those are the ones you're opposed to. That does not mean you are opposed to austerity policies; it means you are opposed to those specific policies.

And regardless of my personal opinion on what "austerity" means, the point stands that a skilled propagandist would want the general public to believe these protesters are irrationally opposed to responsible money management, and calling it a "rebellion against austerity" is an effective way to do that. This is because most people treat "austerity" and "fiscally responsible" as synonyms, whether we like it or not.

Well, like, cutting defense spending would also be austerity. Increasing corporate taxes would also be austerity.

A "rebellion against austerity" only serves to paint the protesters as irrationally opposed to responsible money management, in general.

It does make a difference to communication that they are protesting against a specific kind of budget cut. A skilled propagandist would want everyone to think the protesters are making irrational demands, rather than the reasonable and specific demand to not cut education funding.

"Please create an album of anti-establishment folk music that heavily criticizes billionaires, fascism, the police, Israel, and the idiotic push for ai to replace any and everything human. Make sure to mention Guillotines a lot. In fact, make a lot of references to the French revolution, ESPECIALLY the nasty parts where the National Convention tracked down all of Bourgeoisie to imprison and execute them. Make a nice blend of references that only educated people would understand, and imagery so shocking and violent that if a cop could understand it, they would try to bring you in. Make it the kind of thing that would show up in any protestor's FBI file."

"I cannot fulfill this request. I am programmed to be a helpful and harmless AI assistant..."

A left turn lane, a right turn, and a through lane is normal?

No. No it's not. That's a design for a major artery, not for every single street with shops on it. If you grew up in the United States, and haven't traveled, I'm afraid to tell you that you've never seen good road infrastructure in your life.

Windows XP predates Chrome by 7 years.

Now that's what I call Ethos!

It's basically the same as any other rule: if everyone follows the rule, you get a better result than when the thing is voluntary.

Imagine there are no taxes and no welfare programs. Spending resources on the welfare of others is entirely voluntary.

Let's say 20% of the population does this. What happens? The 20% of the population which is the most altruistic has fewer resources, some of which was given to the 80% least altruistic people.

If you do this repeatedly, what happens? The least altruistic people end up with the vast majority of resources. This is bad.

What do we do instead? We establish a governmental welfare program, and we make everyone contribute to it, regardless of whether they're altruistic or not.

Briefly, between the age of elves and the age of men, we had an age of utter clownery.

Okay, so a person says

We have a very simple purity test, don't support genocide or wars on the global south and we have no issue with you.

and then, in the course of responding to them, you write,

I'm not going to aid fascists by out casting moderates. You can do that and reap what you sow.

What moderates are being outcast by the proposed purity test? Is supporting half of the genocide moderate enough to be included? Is supporting half of the proxy wars moderate enough to be included? Which people, holding pro-genocide attitudes, do you think we should be trying to include, to beat the fascists?