People pay to take this exam. Someone decided to pocket some of that money for their org and have an AI org do some of it instead of qualified professionals. They didn't bother to check the output. It came out poorly and now they have to eat the cost of going back and fixing it. The students and proctors are not compensated for the added time and stress, but paid the same for an overall worse experience. It's a microcosm of everything wrong with the way AI is being used.
MountingSuspicion
joined 2 years ago
I mean, pretty good advice to just treat all unknown snakes/sharks like possibly dangerous people. Give them a wide berth and try not to draw their attention. Look for a place to retreat to if things become more dangerous. Try to calmly alert others that leaving the area may be best.
Agreed. Peace and love.
Yes, I agree that in healthy interactions subs should have the power and most doms are pretty flexible.
As I mentioned above, breath play is dangerous and imho too common considering how few people have any idea what they're doing.
I also agree regarding 50 shades. That dynamic is unhealthy and no one should have to experience that.
What I can say after experiencing both sides of casual and less casual encounters is that if I meet someone in a non kink bar and the extent of her kink is she wants me to verbally degrade her, I'm unfortunately unlikely to get a list of things she wants to be called. I can sit her down and have a conversation about it, but that's more likely to see her disinterested in speaking openly about it than asking something about it during the normal flow of the encounter. "Tell me how naughty you are" or whatever is more likely to illicit things she is comfortable being called than actually sitting her down to talk about it. In my experience, outside of the kink community, I've not seen people willing to have open and honest discussions about their kinks. In long term relationships it's different, but if I'm taking someone home and we're not expecting to be together for an extended period of time, I have not personally found it fruitful to attempt to invoke a paradigm shift regarding shame and power as it relates to sexuality. Maybe that's a me issue, but I'm not sure that it can be done that fast and I'm attempting to work within that framework. I would never physically restrain someone or engage in more serious play on a one off basis without having a serious discussion about it, but I don't think most people engaging in casual encounters go that far either.
I'm trying to meet society where it's at, and I'm not sure what the realistic alternative is. Maybe I'm too pessimistic, but imho casual subs will continue to try to find people who will engage with them the way they desire and it will continue to put them at risk until either they or casual doms get more serious about boundaries and consent. I do not see kink community norms making it to a more casual setting any time soon, so in the meantime I can only suggest stop gap measures. I'm not seeing a lot of what I would consider realistic advice for people who find themselves in that situation. I know plenty of het women who would prefer a few rougher than expected encounters than having to sit down and verbalize their sexual desires. I can tell them to get over that, or I can suggest that people doing the harm (engaging in rough sex without consent is harm regardless of if you THINK they want it or not) take responsibility as well. Ideally we see movement on both ends, but imho the het women are not actually doing harm. They are putting themselves in situations they know have the potential to be harmful, but they aren't DOING the harm. It their partners who are deciding the boundaries. I don't think they are purposefully harming people, but that's the outcome.
I'm really not sure that we're in disagreement here. I think anyone initiating is great. I suggested ways for doms to do it that are more consistent with casual interaction than in kink communities, since there seems to be a consensus that subs in the casual scene don't like it to be so explicit.
I'm not saying subs can't or shouldn't. I'm just saying that seeing as subs in more casual settings seem turned off by explicit discussion of boundaries, that it seems like a hard sell to then expect a cultural shift of them embracing being the ones to begin the conversation. If you can start that shift, amazing, but I don't see a huge movement in that regard currently. I think it'd be ill advised for me to just tell newbie/casual doms "don't worry have your sub be responsible for bringing up their boundaries". I would err on the side of caution and I was just providing a suggestion for how to do that in a casual setting without ruining the mood. As I've said before, anyone can bring it up and everyone should bring it up.
It's not like he shut down someone else's work. He stopped working on his own pet project. There's nothing stopping you from picking it up and working on it. It's publicly available. Insulting him seems juvenile and entitled. It's not his job to supply people with this (literally, he's not being paid for it). Even if you think he took a payout to stop working on it, or he was bullied into stopping (no support for either of these positions) it's ok for an 18 year old to be concerned about threats from a company and it's ok for them to take a payout for something they worked on. Again, no evidence for either, but neither of those scenarios would make it appropriate to insult him.
Here, feel free to fork it: https://github.com/Whisky-App/Whisky
I think sex positive people generally appreciate when their partner is upfront and clear about their boundaries. I just don't think it's as common for subs to be the ones to start that discussion. Even your wording regarding it taking a huge burden off your dom implies that there was some pressure on the dom to ask for it. In my experience, the doms are the ones that start that discussion. My experience seems to align with other people's experience when we discuss it, but I'm definitely not saying that's always the case.
Why don't they go the way of England and declare him god emperor Trump?
Even so, the guy said he told everyone he was a citizen. If someone asks me if I'm here on a visa and I respond "no" and then they arrest me and I'm like "I'm a citizen" you can't then act like they were using trick questions for plausible deniability. The second I say I'm a citizen that goes out the window regardless of what I was asked. If the guy answered every question with "I'm a citizen and (answer)" I don't think the result would be any different, so allowing them to hide behind "trick questions" obscures the fact that they are lying to get POC rounded up. They are lying and they don't need "trick questions" because they don't care what your answer is. You could answer the trick question "correctly" and still be rounded up. Anything suggesting that the fault lies in anything but the institution and its officers is a distraction imho. So I feel like "trick question" is a deflection/distraction and I have not read anything to even suggest that's the case. It seems like they 1) didn't believe him and 2) lied to cover it up. I have not read anything that suggests the citizen in question answered a question that may have been suspicious but I have read that he was not believed.
Yeah, I agree with your personal experience regarding who is generally turned off by it, but I think that's why it needs to be a masc/Dom lead thing. Subs are too turned off by it conceptually and don't want to take the lead. I think the big issue is how it's incorporated into foreplay. Unfortunately, being sexy and dom about consent is not second nature to everyone, but it can definitely be done.
"Do you want me to X" or "wouldn't you like that?" can be sprinkled throughout foreplay. "Tell me when to stop" or walking someone through an RP scenario where you respect their no and then they have to enthusiastically express consent to proceed. Absolute basic outline below devoid of all sexuality and not actually phrasing I would use: "Tell me to stop" "I don't want you to" "Tell me anyway"
Option A "Ok. Stop" You stop and then have some sexy banter and tell them they need to ask you to continue. You've now demonstrated that you will respect their no even if you know it's just play and you have their enthusiastic consent to proceed. If they don't want to proceed either they didn't actually like what was happening or you can try to ask them what they want instead and now they're in charge.
OR "No I like this too much" You can proceed and potentially ask sexy follow ups to understand what specifically they like. "Oh you like how I X or do you like how I Y better?"
The issue is there's a fine line between sexy and cringe. Knowing how to read a situation will definitely help, but the concept of using consent to build suspense is not new. There's a whole genre of bodice rippers where the woman is the one that finally gives in and lets the man take her because he insists he won't touch her until she begs for it. It obviously requires more restraint from the dom, and different techniques work on different people, but generally a way can be found to put consent in the hands of a sub without letting them feel like the power dynamic has been lost. It really is an art form though and not everyone can be a great artist, but we can all try our best.
I don't think the comment is suggesting they criticize Protestantism. I think they are suggesting that US Catholics faith no longer aligns with the Vatican and that it's diverged to the point that in no longer even represents the idea of Christianity at large (Protestants) and more just some new thing (presumably where people pretend to read the Bible and just ignore all the commandments).
I think a lot of the job is a hold over from a pre Internet era. Yes, stations do you have to regularly state what channel you're listening to, but before the Internet DJs provided pretty useful information regarding what was playing. You couldn't just look up on the fly the lyrics of a song to find out the name or the band, or if they were playing in your area.
DJs used to give listeners that information, and potentially provide additional context or similar bands that would be of interest. It was hard to get that information at the time. I know some relatively young people who still listen to DJ morning shows, but they listen for the skits And humor, not for the music insights. At this point, I don't think there's really much need for them, but I imagine nobody wants to be the first to fully get rid of them. I imagine people are upset about this, but I don't know that they would be any less upset if they just decided to do away with DJs altogether.