Right?

I seriously doubt the writers would ever take these two characters in that direction—despite the fact that all the signs are there and the actors themselves have said they'd be open to it. They've already got a lesbian couple on the show, so is it really needed?

But with Falchuk/ Murphy who knows?

Christian MY ASS

Christian MY ASS

to want not only a woman to suffer…which I get that these Evangelical types believe women must do because of Eve and a talking snake (seriously) but to also want an infant to struggle to breathe, to choke, to suffer….that is the opposite of pro life

Fuck these people, seriously

Vote all of them out.

I'm an Equal Opportunity Disparager

Like I did with Tim Cook, I aksed MacGPT to write an unflattering review of Bill Gates' tenure at Microsoft:

Windows of Opportunity Lost: A Critical Review of Bill Gates' Tenure at Microsoft

Bill Gates' time at Microsoft was undoubtedly transformative for the tech industry, but his tenure as the company's leader was far from flawless. From monopolistic practices to stifling innovation, Gates' actions left a negative impact on both the company and the tech landscape as a whole.

        1. Monopolistic Tactics: Gates' aggressive pursuit of a monopoly in the software market was a central theme of his reign at Microsoft. The company engaged in anti-competitive practices, forcing computer manufacturers to bundle Windows with their products, effectively stifling competition and limiting consumer choice. This monopolistic behavior resulted in significant legal battles and tarnished the company's reputation.
        2. Innovation Suppression: Rather than encouraging innovation and promoting new ideas, Gates' Microsoft often sought to crush potential competitors. The infamous "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" strategy was used to undermine competing technologies, hindering progress and stifling healthy competition in the industry.
        3. Inferior Software Quality: Under Gates' leadership, Microsoft became known for releasing software products riddled with bugs and vulnerabilities. The rush to push out new versions of Windows and other applications led to countless frustrations for consumers and businesses alike. This approach prioritized quantity over quality, and users were often left to deal with the consequences of shoddy software.
        4. Clunky User Interfaces: Gates' insistence on maintaining backward compatibility often resulted in clunky and confusing user interfaces. Instead of pushing for sleeker and more user-friendly designs, Microsoft's software became known for its cluttered menus and difficult-to-navigate features, frustrating users and slowing down productivity.
        5. Failed Ventures and Mismanagement: Throughout his tenure, Gates oversaw several failed ventures and mismanaged acquisitions. The company's entry into the mobile phone market was particularly disastrous, as they failed to recognize the potential of smartphones and fell behind competitors. Their ill-fated acquisition of Nokia further compounded their problems and demonstrated a lack of strategic vision.
        6. Resistance to Open Source: Gates' strong aversion to open-source software hindered Microsoft's ability to adapt to changing industry trends. The company's reluctance to embrace open-source initiatives resulted in missed opportunities to collaborate with the developer community and leverage the power of open-source innovation.
        7. Poor Security Record: Despite Microsoft's resources, Gates' leadership failed to adequately address security concerns in its products. The constant stream of security patches and vulnerabilities in Microsoft software left users exposed to cyber threats and eroded trust in the brand.
        8. Lack of Diverse Leadership: Throughout Gates' tenure, Microsoft struggled with a lack of diversity in its leadership ranks. The company's leadership was predominantly male and lacked representation from various backgrounds, which contributed to a narrow perspective and potential blind spots in decision-making.

Conclusion: Bill Gates' tenure at Microsoft was undoubtedly influential in shaping the technology landscape, but it was far from exemplary. The company's aggressive monopolistic tactics, lackluster software quality, and missed opportunities for innovation are significant blemishes on Gates' legacy. While he undoubtedly left a lasting impact on the industry, his tenure at Microsoft is marked by shortcomings that should not be overlooked.

An Interaction with ChatGPT

I asked, "Write an unflattering review of Tim Cook's tenure at Apple."

Tim Cook's tenure at Apple can only be described as a disappointment. While he may have stepped into the shoes of the iconic Steve Jobs, Cook has failed to live up to the expectations and innovation that Apple was once known for.

One of the major criticisms of Cook's leadership is his lack of visionary thinking. Unlike Jobs, who had an uncanny ability to anticipate consumer needs and revolutionize entire industries, Cook seems content with maintaining the status quo. Under his watch, Apple has released a series of incremental updates to existing products, with little to no groundbreaking advancements. The company has become complacent, relying on its loyal customer base rather than pushing the boundaries of technology.

Another glaring issue is Cook's inability to diversify Apple's product line. While the iPhone continues to be the company's cash cow, it has also become its Achilles' heel. Cook has failed to successfully launch new products or expand into emerging markets. Apple's attempts at diversification, such as the Apple Watch or Apple TV, have been lackluster at best, lacking the innovation and excitement that were once synonymous with the brand.

Cook's leadership has also been marred by a series of questionable decisions. From the controversial removal of the headphone jack to the introduction of the much-maligned butterfly keyboard, Apple's product choices have been met with widespread criticism. These missteps demonstrate a lack of understanding of consumer needs and preferences, and a failure to deliver products that truly resonate with the market.

Furthermore, Cook's approach to privacy and security has been far from stellar. While he may claim that Apple values user privacy, the company has faced multiple security breaches and data leaks during his tenure. These incidents raise serious concerns about Apple's ability to protect its customers' information and undermine the company's reputation for security.

Lastly, Cook's handling of Apple's supply chain and manufacturing practices has come under scrutiny. Reports of poor working conditions and labor violations in Apple's overseas factories have tarnished the company's image. Despite promises of improving conditions, little has been done to address these issues, casting doubt on Apple's commitment to ethical business practices.

In summary, Tim Cook's tenure at Apple has been marked by a lack of innovation, a failure to diversify the product line, questionable decision-making, and ethical concerns. Apple, once a trailblazer in the tech industry, has lost its edge under Cook's leadership. It's clear that the company needs a visionary leader who can reignite the spirit of innovation and take Apple back to its former glory.

Why Are You An Atheist?

An excellent post from Atheist Revolution:

"Why are you an atheist?" I've heard that question or some version of it more times than I can count. I don't blame the person asking it for asking it. Like me, they might live in a country where almost everyone believes in gods. Someone who doesn't is an outlier. Someone who uses the "atheist" label is even more of an outlier. Besides, asking questions about the world around us is a good thing. It is the kind of thing we should encourage.

My most common response is that religious believers haven't met their burden of proof. I'm an atheist because I have not encountered sufficient evidence to support a rational belief in gods. But while I find this response satisfying, I realize that few religious believers will do so. I also recognize that this response is incomplete. I've sacrificed clarity for brevity.

What's an Atheist?

No atheist should attempt to answer this question without doing something first. What's that? Make sure we understand what the person asking the question means by "atheist." Chances are, they mean something different from what we mean.

When I say I'm an atheist, I'm saying I don't believe in gods. That's all I'm saying. I'm not claiming to know that gods don't exist. I'm not claiming to know anything about gods with certainty. I'm telling you I don't believe in gods.

Why is this important? If the person asking the question thinks that an atheist is someone who is 100% certain gods don't exist, we're going to talk past each other. They're going to ask me why I believe things I don't believe.

It is also important because it gets to why I'm an atheist: evidence. I don't have enough of it to conclude that gods exist. Until I do, I'm operating "as if" they don't.

Why Is Evidence Valuable?

I'd like to believe as many true things as possible. I'd also like to believe as few false things as possible. I won't pretend everyone shares this desire, but it applies to me. How do I go about doing this? That's where evidence comes in. I haven't found a more reliable way to do it than evidence.

When someone makes a claim, we seek evidence to help us assess it. The evidence we seek usually scales to the claim. Suppose the claim is mundane, ordinary, or trivial. We may not need much evidence to support it. When the claim becomes fantastic, implausible, or extraordinary, we'll demand more. Most of us operate this way for most claims.

If I text my co-worker right now and tell him I had a haircut, he's not going to need any evidence to support my claim. But what if I tell him I had a haircut and I now have a mohawk? He's not going to believe me without evidence. He's going to demand a photo.

What does this have to do with the question of whether gods exist? Plenty. Consider the claims you often hear from religious believers about their gods. If you hadn't grown up hearing them, how plausible would they sound to you? Are these not among the most extraordinary claims we've heard? Why don't we need considerable evidence to support them?

What Evidence Do You Need?

For some religious believers, evidence is irrelevant. Some think the existence of their preferred god(s) is self-evident. How else can anybody explain why we're here? Others value faith, which they recognize as belief without evidence. They think faith is virtuous and worry that evidence could render it unnecessary.

Many other religious believers will point to specific evidence. As far as I'm concerned, the most valuable type involves personal revelation. If your preferred god(s) have been communicating with you, that seems like evidence. What if every one of your prayers has been answered? Why wouldn't you believe?

But as valuable as personal revelation might be for the person who has it, it holds little value for the rest of us. I've never heard from gods or felt their presence. Years of prayer didn't matter. If gods are out there, they've never made themselves accessible to me. It would make no sense for me to believe. Hearing about someone else's revelation doesn't cut it.

It would be easy to get bogged down in the question of what sort of evidence I'd consider sufficient. The short version is that I'd need my own personal revelation. I'd need one of these powerful gods to make itself known to me in a way I couldn't mistake for anything else. I'd leave the specifics up to the god(s) involved. If such a being exists, I'd have to think it could show me if it wanted to do so.

Of the Possibilities, Which Sounds More Likely?

Despite our best efforts to distance ourselves from it, nature surrounds us. We are comfortable with natural explanations. Few of us believe that the raindrops landing on our windshield are the tears of gods. We may not enjoy the sound of thunder when we are trying to sleep, but we know Thor isn't behind it.

While there are plenty of things we can't explain, supernatural entities aren't needed. They don't have any more explanatory power than saying, "We don't know." We know that nature exists. We live in a natural world. When we weigh that against gods, which seems more likely?

If there's an all-powerful being out there pulling the strings, why does it so rarely show up where we most need it? Did it get you that sweet parking space while watching your neighbor's kid die of leukemia? Why do the people who claim to speak for it often seem so despicable?

Take a look an honest look at our world. Doesn't it resemble the sort of world we'd expect if there weren't any gods? Why do you suppose that is? It could be because the gods are hiding. It also could be because they aren't there. But which seems more likely?

Remember, I'm Answering Your Question

Some religious believers become defensive or even hostile in conversations like this. They accuse the atheist of trying to change their minds or even destroy their faith. This is the point where it helps to remember how we started down this road. You asked a question, and I'm giving you my answer.

I didn't knock on your door when you were busy. I didn't greet you by asking, "Have you heard the good news about atheism?" I didn't drop flyers on your porch promoting an atheist organization after you told me you weren't interested.

I didn't do any of these things because I'm not trying to change your mind. I don't know what you've experienced. I'm not sure which gods might have communicated with you. What I do know is that you asked me why I'm an atheist. I'm attempting to give you an answer.

I Would've Loved To Have Been a Fly on the Wall…

…when this was shown to her!

This is one of the sharpest and most savvy political moves we've seen in the social media era. Marjorie Taylor Greene basically just wrote the narrative for why Joe Biden needs to be reelected in 2024.

We've been telling the Dems to use the Republicans' own words against them for years. Looks like someone is finally listening.