The system they log into is called DAVID(Driver and Automobile Information Database) which logs activity. If an officer access that information for unlawful purposes, they can be prosecuted. You probably wont believe it, but the reason you hear about cops stalking their ex's is because they got caught doing so.
It uses a DTO style mapping system and central factory EntityManager making unit testing a breeze. Model definitions let you map database primitives directly from the models. It will automagically build you the table on first use and it's capable of moving data from one engine to another engine on the fly. Migrations are built in and it's capable of generating migrations directly from changes to a model. It's smart about SQL multi saves (transactions), joins for relationships, views, and a bunch of other database features that most ORMs don't even bother to be even aware of let alone implement. It's basically an enterprise level ORM. Functionally it works like ActiveRecord but under the hood it's very different.
The first time I heard the name Django was like 15 years ago in college so I'm sure I've used it by hosting some project for one reason or another over the years. Python is just not my go to. Also I maintain my own framework in PHP entirely so that's what I pull off the shelf when I wanna do CRUD.
I canceled Spotify after they created an AI clone of King Gizzard. I couldnt think of anything lamer than to try an replace a band like that with an AI rip of their music. Never again.
Its kind of annoying that CF would use an LLM to build something and try to pass it off as something built from "the ground up". Its just copying the library that was already build and passing it off as their own.
Gone are the days of the strong silent type running the roles of high power in the government. He is a real embarrassment and I feel sorry for his mother.
My parents were great, but if we were forced by circumstance to live in the worst parts of the US (e.g., Appalachia), then no amount of having a "good upbringing" would shield me from having a peer group which would routinely put it to the test.
Gone only because current leadership kicked them all to the curb and told them to get out of Washington. Only loyal talking heads are wanted there now.
It means whatever you want it to mean. That’s why it’s primarily used by people who don’t know how to articulate their thoughts. If you think you know what woke means, you’re wrong by definition.
Everything that touches on the adult industry is controversial, sometimes rightfully so, but it also responds to a need, like it or not. Regulation can make it more or less open, but it always here.
Out of everything in the adult industry, to me, OnlyFans is one of the most sane. That is encouraging independent performers to get payed directly by their fans, taking only a reasonable commission. It doesn't mean there is no exploitation, but at least, it offers a way for those who want to do this kind of work to do it on their own terms.
The flip side is that if you make a thing smooth, profitable, and safe-feeling, you get more of it, as any economist can tell you. Also, as any sociologist can tell you, when you make a fringe thing feel normal among young people, you get a LOT more of it.
So your defense of OF only real works if you think that an explosion of commercialized sex has no negative effect on our culture, or if you (stupidly) believe that the rate of sex work is an immutable constant, impervious to laws, technology, or social contagion.
I agree with your description of what goes on here with this and other things as well. It's depressing that it seems like for almost any activity the two choices are illegal and celebrated. It seems like if you venture an opinion that X is wrong not adding and I think it should be a crime marks you as something akin to a hypocrite.
Nominally we live in a tolerant society but sometimes I wonder if anyone knows what the word means.
I would largely consider being critical of sex workers (who do it in a safe manner) is largely just intolerance.
In American society, sex is in it's own corner. It's icky, immoral, unpure, and stands alone in it's perception. Violence, blood and guts, exploitation, injustice - these are all much easier for Americans to swallow than sex. A company laying off 500 people and potentially ruining their lives is business as usual, but a woman showing a part of her body to people who consent is unthinkable.
The reality is, I think, we all sell our bodies, and minds. And, out of all of us, OnlyFans models sell their bodies some of the least. After all, they are not at higher risk of heart attack. After all, they do not get carpal tunnel or arthritis. After all, they are much closer to self-employed than me. After all, they write their schedules, they define their work, and they set the expectations for performance.
That's not to say it should be celebrated. But I think we should view it honestly, for what it really is. A way to make money. People want to see other naked people, and they're gonna do that, so why not? And, is the human body really so repulsive that we have to degrade people for showing it off? I don't believe so.
If my daughter said she was choosing between two jobs - plumber and OnlyFans - I'd suggest she buy a wrench.
There are a lot of people who will say that all jobs are exploitative. Besides that who's to say the woman on OnlyFans aren't the ones doing the exploitation of the guys who are forking over money. And as you say should anyone be degraded for showing their body? Or even wanting to see someone else's?
It's all true.
And yet for some reason I'm still going to say buy a wrench. I'm not sure why but I think it has to do with the fact that it confuses the personal and the social. Things that you do for personal non monetary reasons should be separate and apart from things you do for social monetary reasons. It's probably why I wouldn't ever loan money to friends - I'd rather just give them money. Or my job gives me a paycheck and not a thumbs up every 2 weeks - even though that's pretty much all my wife gives me when I take out the garbage.
I don't think saying people holding the opposite view are wrong is intolerant. Making it a crime? That's intolerant. When you go from making an argument to forcing your will is where intolerance starts. The opposite end is approval and that starts with thinking something wrong but not actually saying anything at all.
If you draw the line of intolerance at making laws, I would say you have next to no conviction.
Which is why I think you probably don't actually believe that. That's just the standard you're choosing to apply to this one specific case. As I've said - sex stands alone. The standards are completely unique.
In general I'd say, if the intolerant think I'm intolerant, then I must be doing something right. Ultimately I don't really care how women choose to make their money, and I don't see anything wrong at all with lust. Purity is stupid, who cares, have all the sex you want and jerk yourself off silly.
Also, monogamy is stupid. Or, at least, how most people view it is. There's nothing wrong with being monogamous because you want to. But most people aren't doing it for that. They're doing it because they fear how they will be perceived if they are not monogamous.
And so we see rampant divorces, failed marriages, and cheating out the wazoo! The stupid point to this and say "see, this is what happens to the impure!" But that's not true. That happens because of a notion of purity fueled by shame and perception.
Nobody asks themselves if they love someone. They ask if other people view what they are doing as love. And so, sex is wicked, marriage is good, and that's that.
Why would I care about my words meaning anything to anyone? I am just a meat sack with a wallet, and my only relationships with the other meat sacks are economic. There's no such thing as a culture or a community, and anyone alleging harms to it is "largely just intolerant". I can tolerate anything but someone with a standard of right and wrong.
Personally, I have no notion of what it's like to have standards, which is why I never bothered to learn the difference between "it's" and "its", or to think about anything on a deeper level than Econ 101.
> Out of everything in the adult industry, to me, OnlyFans is one of the most sane. That is encouraging independent performers to get payed directly by their fans, taking only a reasonable commission.
I kinda agree, but the prevalence of fake chatting soured me on the company as a bastion of sane sex work. Without it, it seems legit: fans pay for content, they get content. But add the layer of fans pay for chatting with the models, and get something else.
Personal responsibility has to enter the picture somewhere. If a family is ripped apart because a member is using OnlyFans then that's that family member bears responsibility. OnlyFans didn't invent pornography. And on the model side, it allows cutting out a whole industry of truly skeezy, immoral middlemen distributors.
I do dislike the effect OnlyFans has had on society but I think it's a symptom, not a cause.
The family of the OF user is not the only family affected by this general decay. Indeed, when you normalize sex work, some families never even form. There's such a thing as a social fabric.
Libertarianism is willful ignorance, and taken this far, it's a brain disease.
> cutting out a whole industry of truly skeezy, immoral middlemen distributors
This argument only makes sense if you blindly model the amount of degrading dreck as a constant, unaffected by technology and opportunities. Again, brain disease.
Oh, and before OF, Radvinsky was facilitating child porn and bestiality. Were the children and animals being empowered, too? Should they have taken responsibility?
> Oh, and before OF, Radvinsky was facilitating child porn and bestiality.
I have no idea if that's true but it's irrelevant, those are illegal. Porn is not illegal. You may wish to make porn illegal but so far society has not agreed with you on that.
Do you believe that there is anything that is legal yet immoral? If an industry is legal, is it automatically good to dedicate your life to growing and spreading it to all corners of society, so long as it makes you money? Do you think this guy left the world a better place?
Less polemically...
> I do dislike the effect OnlyFans has had on society but I think it's a symptom, not a cause.
What do you think is the underlying cause or causes?
You nailed it! The only way I could possible believe in any constraints on the free market is that I am Monty Python's cartoon of a Catholic. Well done.
There is no such thing as a healthy or unhealthy society. Only money. This guy made a lot of it. What a hero. All of us here on the orange site should aspire to his level of genius. Ha ha ha funny songs, silly walks.
He provided a way for many people to earn a living from the comfort of their homes and saved them from people that can exploit sexual workers (economically and worse).
If you find sexual work a despicable thing it's your right, but the people that are doing it through Onlyfans have it better than in other ways.
Does OnlyFans have an extensive anti-trafficking program to prevent one typical method of exploitation? If not, it's just proving a platform for the traffickers to make money from the comfort of a safe jurisdiction.
IIRC, yes. It’s been some time ago, I don’t know how manufacturing looks now. It’s different process compared to 3D printing at home. It doesn’t mean it should be different, it just has to maintain certain properties. I’m not chemical or bioengineer to go into detail of it :)
I use Sequelize at work and have used drizzle for a few personal projects and I can say that I really like the following:
- Native TS integration
- The migrations system is wonderful
- The API is more intuitive, imo.
I think it comes down to personal preference to use any/none of these tools, but I liked it enough to donate some space cash to the project.
