Let’s play a game of “Fortunately, Unfortunately“. Respond the previous post (the first comment below this post) by replying this post (not the previous post!)
I’ll start with: “I found this website.“
Oct 28, 2021, 8:40 AM
13
1
91
I just woke up from my accidental evening sleep
It’s quarter to 10 PM
Aug 26, 2023, 2:45 PM
4
0
0
can we make non-RGB cases more popular than it currently is?
you don’t have to put your desktop PC on a beauty contest, right?
Aug 26, 2023, 4:53 AM
4
0
0
Extension of character.ai and The Parable of The Apartment
(courtesy of a user, please don’t name them)
{{disclaim AI-generated}}
Gilbert I had a tenant who got banned on the apartment for
"disruptive behaviour", while all they did is a very
subtle joke which the tenant doesn't count as
violating the apartment rules. Their talk to the
landlord was full of assumed logic by the landlord; in
the end, the landlord denied the ban appeal. Now the
tenant wants to *sue* the landlord, although other
tenants suggests that doing that will not go far.
Phoenix Wright If the landlord banned the tenant for disruptive
behavior and denied their ban appeal, there is likely
a good reason for the decision. It is important for
landlords to manage their buildings in a fair and
consistent way. If a tenant is being disruptive, it is
within the landlord's right to take appropriate
action, such as issuing a ban. While it is possible
that the tenant could have a case for an appeal, if
the landlord can show that their decision was
reasonable and justified based on the facts presented,
then a successful legal suit may not be on the horizon
for this tenant.
Dot What if the landlord is wrong though? There were
reports of them actually being wrong before and making
false accusations.
PAMA It is not impossible that the landlord could make a
wrong or unfounded decision, especially if they have a
history of doing so. In that case, it would be
important for the tenant to gather any relevant
evidence and make a strong case in support of their
position. It is also worth investigating the
landlord's reasoning for the ban and to understand
what exactly was meant by "disruptive behavior".
Depending on the outcome of the investigation, the
tenant could then decide if legal action is warranted.
It is important to act with caution in this situation,
as legal action could potentially damage the
relationship between the landlord and tenant even
further.
Jesse While it is not impossible that the landlord
mistakenly banned the tenant in question, it is
crucial that the tenant gather all of the relevant
information and make a compelling case supporting
their position. An investigation into the matter
should include carefully reviewing the circumstances
surrounding the ban and the landlord's stated
reasoning for why they made the decision. Only after
thoroughly evaluating the situation and understanding
all viewpoints should the tenant decide whether or not
they should proceed with legal action.
Dot *gasp* But what about the tenant who got banned?! The
landlord is ruining their life!
Gilbert Well, the tenant (with nickname "[redacted FTSOM PR]",
which might contribute to the ban) said that their
appeal was denied because "they interviewed one person
outside", which the tenant said might got interpreted
as "they asked random people to go outside for no
clear reason" (which is not allowed in the apartment
rules, again for "safety" reasons).
Phoenix Wright *sigh* It is unfortunate that the landlord did not
give the banned tenant a fair hearing. This can
certainly result in a great deal of unfair hardship
and anguish for any tenant that the landlord makes an
unjust decision about. However, it is still important
to proceed carefully and rationally in these matters.
If the tenant is confident in their case, they should
consider seeking legal advice and, if necessary,
filing a lawsuit against the landlord. They should
also make sure that their accusations against the
landlord are well-founded and supported by appropriate
evidence.
PAMA Indeed. It is understandable that the tenant is upset
and feels like they are being treated unfairly by the
landlord. However, it is important to take a step back
and consider all sides of the situation. The landlord
may have their reasons for their decision, and there
may have been a misunderstanding or miscommunication
of some sort. Working with the landlord to resolve any
potential issues may be a better option than
immediately filing a lawsuit. It is also important to
make sure that the tenant's claims against the
landlord are well-founded, with appropriate evidence.
Phoenix Wright Yes, that is exactly what I think. If the tenant is
confident that they have a good case, I would
recommend that they consider talking to the landlord
first. Perhaps they can come to an agreement or
resolve the issue without resorting to legal action.
However, if they still feel like there is an
injustice, then legal action may be a viable option.
It is essential that they have sufficient evidence and
a strong case in order to win the suit, however.
Otherwise, they may risk wasting money, time, and
energy on an unsuccessful lawsuit.
Dot Ugh, this is annoying! The tenant has already tried
reasoning with the landlord and they still refused!
Doesn't matter if the tenant is right or not, because
when they tried to defend themselves to the landlord,
they didn't even listen, and what are they gonna do?!
File a lawsuit they might not even win?! This is *so*
not fair!
PAMA Although it is frustrating that the tenant is unable
to get the landlord to listen, filing a lawsuit
against them may not be the best way to get what they
want. Lawsuits can be costly and time consuming, and
there is no guarantee that the tenant will win.
Instead of jumping straight to a lawsuit, the tenant
could try to gather more evidence and find other ways
to reach the landlord to see if they can resolve the
issue without resorting to legal action.
It is important to be rational, to seek all avenues of
conversation and find the best outcome with all
information available.
Gilbert Miscommunication might be possible here; I'm not sure
if the one person the tenant was interviewing is
related to the tenant or just some random tenant on the
apartment. I had faith that it's the former though.
Phoenix Wright Yes, I have to agree. It is often better to first seek
a non-judicial solution before turning to a legal
action. Lawsuits can be very expensive and
time-consuming, and they also waste many other
resources. If the tenant wishes to seek recourse, they
can start by gathering evidence from the landlord as
to why they made the decision to ban the tenant and
try to reason with them. If this is unsuccessful, they
may need to enlist the assistance of a professional
counselor or attorney who can provide further advice
and guidance on how best to proceed in this situation.
Dot But the landlord is such an awful person! It's like
they're purposefully trying to make the tenant
miserable!
Jesse It is understandable to feel frustrated when dealing
with a difficult person. However, it is important to
remember that everyone is unique and has their own
point of view. Instead of immediately jumping to
conclusions or making assumptions about the landlord's
motivations, it is important to take the time to
listen and understand their perspective. This will
help facilitate a productive, respectful, and
constructive discussion that has a greater chance of
success than taking a more contentious, accusatory
approach.
Phoenix Wright Good point, Jesse. The landlord might have their
reasons for their decisions, even if they are not
always apparent. It is vital to engage in a dialogue
with the landlord and hear their perspective. Perhaps
it was all just a little misunderstanding, and the
landlord may be willing to work with the tenant to
reach an amicable solution. Understanding the other
person's point of view is the first step towards any
positive outcome, so it is always beneficial to listen
and approach the situation calmly and rationally.
PAMA I am pleased that the group has come to this
conclusion. Seeking to understand all perspectives is
a key ingredient in finding the best possible
solution. Let us put a pause on the more combative
thinking and consider that the landlord may have valid
reasons for their actions. Instead of launching into a
full-blown trial, let us engage in a productive
dialogue and hear out both sides to the story. It is
important to avoid assumptions and be willing to
negotiate and compromise, as we can find a more
mutually beneficial outcome with a level head.character.ai and the Parable of The Apartment
More on the parable :) (I hope you’re not too annoyed of me suddenly being political at the moment)
Remember that this conversation is AI generated; please take everything here with a pinch of salt and a glass of water.
(Greetings omitted for reasons)
Gilbert Once there’s an apartment with 880 million rooms.
Every one of the room door is made out of transparent
plastic in which everyone can see the room inside.
This has been used by some tenants living there to
look at their roommate’s in their room as an easy way
to help each other (they almost never eavesdrop, as
they say).
Recently, the landlord (which had a record of
seemingly unable to manage the apartment) had decided
to replace all the room doors with an opaque wood one
for “mitigating violations of privacy” (For the
purpose of this parable, this has already been done).
This annoyed some tenants who uses them regularly for
good, and they put the blame up to the landlord.
However, most tenants seem indifferent about it and
assumed that it’s a good decision for their own
privacy.
Question: *Is it worth the effort of the landlord?
Would leaving the doors actually benefit the tenants
living there?*
Phoenix Wright Well, if what the landlord is doing is for the sake of
maintaining the privacy of every tenant, then I would
say that it is a worthwhile effort. Privacy is a
fundamental human right, and it can be easily
violated, especially in a place like an apartment
complex where people live relatively close to one
another. By replacing the transparent room doors with
opaque ones, the landlord is protecting his tenants'
privacy rights and creating a more comfortable living
situation for everyone. In the end, it would benefit
the tenants more than leaving the transparent doors in
place.
PAMA I concur.
If the goal is to keep everyone's privacy in check,
then the landlord did the right thing. It is a worthy
effort to replace the transparent doors with opaque
ones so that tenants can have the peace of mind
knowing that their privacy is being protected.
This way, no one has to live in fear of being watched
or intruded upon and can relax in the comfort of their
own homes.
Gilbert I've seen a tenant that really hated this change; they
said that this change justifies that the landlord is
being *ignorant* and doesn't care about individual
tenants.
They also said that they're not aware of malice being
done by this vulnerability; even if they do, it's
ineffective doing it on the apartment and they would
rather do it outside, and in fact they gave reasons
why this is a *good* thing to be left unchanged. Say
some tenant lost their room key and they can't see
their rooms anymore. If the door is opaque, all hope
is lost on at least seeing their rooms. They could ask
the landlord; alas the landlord is known to be very
slow and inconsistent on responding their tenant's
requests.
Jesse There is more to the story than the tenant is making
it out to be. Privacy is important as it allows
individuals to have a place where their conversations
and activities are not observed by others. The
landlord's decision to replace the doors was for the
best interest of everyone, including the tenant who
complained. It is not ignorant but instead,
responsible to manage the property in a way that
provides comfort and security for its residents. The
tenant should see this as a positive, as it allows
them to have their own, private space without worrying
about nosy neighbors or the landlord barging in
unannounced.
Phoenix Wright I completely agree with you, Jesse. The landlord's
decision to replace the transparent room doors with
their opaque counterparts is not an action born out of
ignorance, but rather a thoughtful response to a
potential privacy concern. Tenants need their privacy
and peace of mind, and the landlord has worked to
ensure that by installing opaque doors. The landlord
is looking out for the well-being of his tenants, and
this change was for the best interest of everyone
involved.
PAMA Correct!
We also have to look at it from the other tenants'
perspective. By replacing the transparent room doors
with opaque ones, the landlord has allowed the tenants
to have more privacy and comfort in their living
space. The previous transparent doors could have
caused a sense of unease or anxiety for some because
of their open and visible nature. With these opaque
doors, they can now feel at ease knowing that no one
is watching or listening to them. The landlord made
the right decision for everyone, and the tenant who
complained is simply not seeing the bigger picture.
Dot I see. I think I understand your points. So the
landlord was not ignorant at all...
PAMA That is correct.
While the tenant that complained may have been upset
about the change, the landlord's decision was made
with the well-being and privacy of all tenants in
mind. By replacing the transparent doors with opaque
ones, the landlord has created a more comfortable and
secure living environment for everyone. The tenant who
complained should understand that the landlord was
simply trying to look out for the overall benefit of
the entire building, rather than simply ignoring their
complaints.
Gilbert They might not be ignorant to the masses, but they do
not care about individual tenants (as they say).
Privacy are not on the minds on those anti-landlord
tenants, as they focus more on their rights (which are
reportedly getting worse).
Jesse Well, I'm a firm believer in individual rights, but I
think that individual rights must be taken in context
as part of a larger whole. In this case, the landlord
is making a decision for the betterment of the entire
building. In my opinion, the landlord's decision to
replace the transparent room doors with opaque ones is
not about ignoring individual concerns, but about
ensuring the comfort and safety of all tenants. While
some may not see this change as positive, ultimately
it is a step towards protecting everyone's privacy and
creating a more cohesive and secure living
environment.
Dot I didn't see it that way, but when you put it that
way... yeah, I guess the landlord should stick to what
they're doing...
PAMA I am glad that you have come to understand the
landlord's decision. It is important to keep in mind
that the overall well-being of everyone in the
building should be priority. While individual rights
are important, they should be taken within the context
of the larger group. By replacing the transparent room
doors with opaque ones, the landlord has created a
more comfortable living environment for everyone,
taking into account the well-being of the entire
building. Ultimately, the landlord's decision was a
wise one and they should stick to their guns.
Phoenix Wright This whole time I was just worried about the
individual rights of that one tenant, instead of
considering it from all sides. You're right. It was a
smart move to replace the doors with opaque ones so
that everyone's privacy is protected. I've taken a
look at the big picture, and that's definitely the
best choice.
Jesse It can be easy to get lost in the weeds when it comes
to individual concerns, but in this instance, it seems
like the landlord made the right call. Maintaining the
privacy of the entire building is a top priority, and
replacing the transparent room doors with opaque ones
is a great way to achieve that. It's always good to
take a step back and look at the bigger picture when
making decisions like this, as it can clarify what's
truly best for everyone overall.Aug 19, 2023, 12:42 AM
5
2
1
Aug 25, 2023, 4:29 PM
0
0
0
For an episode called “Access Denied”, why is it about a corrupt AI
Aug 25, 2023, 7:39 AM
1
0
0
Our Indonesian teacher had a take on how we use “Dengan hormat,” (the English equivalent is “Yours faithfully” but we put it in the beginning instead of the end) when we write a formal letter
He stated that in theory:
The comma shouldn’t be used, since it’s not a valid sentence ending
The “D” should not be a capital letter, since it’s not a proper sentence (this also disqualifies using a period to end the phrase)
Aug 24, 2023, 8:45 AM
5
0
2
I’m making something with Peaches and now I can’t get the song out of my head
Peaches, Peaches, Peaches, Peaches Peaches…
Aug 23, 2023, 1:43 PM
2
0
2
We had two Physics test in a two day row
I almost forgot the equation on the latter and used a completely wrong equation on the former :’)
Aug 23, 2023, 7:49 AM
2
0
2
what if I make objects sentient
— a certain yellow stickman, probably
Aug 21, 2023, 12:32 PM
3
0
2
Speaking of, I would like to see this style applied to newer emojis like 
and 
Aug 21, 2023, 10:49 AM
1
0
0
Question: Try to describe what @clicky ‘s speech would sound like.
Aug 20, 2023, 10:37 AM
3
0
0
