- 0 Posts
- 7 Comments
There is no moral grounds for stealing cultural artifacts. Even if it means the culture that rightfully possesses it wants to destroy it. That choice is entirely that cultures decision to make. Even if we disagree. It’s one thing to clutch your own pearls but so much worse to do that to someone else’s.
I’m as frustrated as the next person here when it comes to how AI is crammed into products, but translation between languages is one of the few things AI can be good at. A lot gets lost in translation, sure, but everything is lost when it’s not translated at all. Are we expected to have official translaters for everything? I use it most often translating explanations of how to fix a chunk of code. Someone else solved the problem except that it’s not in a language I understand, one quick AI translation and I can understand what their solution was and deploy it myself. I couldn’t do that ten years ago. Most AI is hot garbage but I find translation AI very useful.
Technically 1 out of 1 people who undergo that procedure die, eventually. Same is true for people who elect not to have the procedure done, eventually.
Did you know that these weather controlling machines make something called petrollium and that is what controls the weather? Democrats can buy it at any corner store really. The Democrats use it to power their cars when they’re not using their own farts and for pretty much everything else really. One way possible to at least slow down how much petrollium Democrats use and stop their control of the weather is to put a tax on it, or maybe stop selling it? If someone told MTG she was right think she would help shut these weather controlling machines down?
You are technically correct, e-mails aren’t judicially approved. They are hearsay, a statement made outside of court. They absolutely can be used as evidence. Lionel Hutz was on the money when he said that ‘hearsay is a kind of evidence’. Depending on the hearsay it can be quite strong evidence. That evidence can be used to make a testimony and that is judicially approved. There is strong hearsay, such as a series of emails which details the crime, and there is weak hearsay, like ‘everyone knows Joe did it’. One of those examples of hearsay you can take to court, the other, well you can take what everyone is saying to court but it won’t get you very far.
While there can definitely be some legitimate discussion and ambiguity over which culture/country gets to inherit Mayan artifacts, for example, saying that the British, for example, should inherit it is a very weak argument. It’s not like the entirety of an extinct societies people just dropped dead. Some survived and after some time rebuilt new societies. Using Mayan artifacts as an example, Mexico, Guatemala, and Honduras have a better claim to them then the British. It’s not propaganda or useless to say that items of cultural heritage should be returned.
So how about this what about-ism, if you live in the United States, the British took cultural artifacts from your lands too and aren’t giving them back right this moment. Where did you think all those native American artifacts in British museums came from? They didn’t make them and it’s not like North America was spared from British plundering. Might be nice to get that stuff back.