In the USA, health-care is already a luxury of the wealthy. Perhaps if we improve the IQ of our population with free access to polygenic scoring and IVF, we'll stop voting in lunatics who benefit the wealthy. :P
Anyway, most medical advancements start out only available to the wealthy, and then trickle-down to the lower class. At least, that's how it works in countries that have good health care, not so much the U.S. (despite the U.S. holding so-called "trickle-down economics" on a pedestal). Still, sequencing a genome cost usd$1million in 2000, but is now like usd$50.
If polygenic selection follows the same curve as other genetic procedures and 25 years from now (that's 1 generation) it costs $50, then I can't really see it being something that disproportionately benefits the wealthy. Why would somebody turn it down at that price, if they're going to have a kid? It would surely save them money in the long-run, since it reduces the risk of disease.
I don't trust society to fairly give out any kind of health-related benefit. The USA just ended PEPFAR this year, condemning millions in africa to die of easily-preventable diseases. But you don't see me protesting the very notion of medical science.
I find it surprising that you think the rich and powerful would not choose to genetically enhance themselves (their children) to be smarter, more attractive, etc. They would surely be the first to do so.
Gattaca is a great warning about what could happen if we have gene-elitism. If you've forgotten, the premise of Gattaca is that the main character isn't genetically enhanced, but he's still sufficiently capable; it's only stigma, not an actual lack of ability, which is a threat to his career. We already live in a world where some people are privileged and some people are not, and despite this, there's been a Black POTUS, women astronauts, and so on. That a lack of privilege is a barrier that can be overcome with hard work is basically central to liberal ideology; I don't see it disappearing in the west any time soon.
This is only because the word "eugenics" has been made a bad word because people assume that anything called "eugenics" must be similar to the horrible things the Nazis did. It's the non-central fallacy -- such things are eugenics only in the same way that Martin Luther king is technically a criminal (he did violate the law by protesting) or abortion is murder (a "human being" does "die").
Polygenic scoring on embryos is legal and eminently doable if you're wealthy enough to afford it; it's a very effective way to eliminate the risk of debilitating genetic diseases like Down's Syndrome, and can greatly reduce the risk of things like Alzheimer's or some types of cancer. It also can improve the IQ of your child by up to ~8 points or so, which correlates (plausibly causally) with higher education and income in life. So basically, it's an effective way to help make your child more privileged. Right now it's only affordable by the very wealthy though, but perhaps in ten years it will be very cheap.
Notice though that it's unrelated to race pseudoscience and murder, even though race pseudoscientists and nazis like to talk about genetics and IQ.
I don't see the relevance of its personal use here. If it is ethical to use your own AI for personal use, why is it unethical to use an AI trained on stolen data for personal use?
That's very deontological. Suppose you train a model that is equally good as other models, but only using your own work. (If you were a billionaire, you could commission many works to achieve this, perhaps.) Either way, you end up with an AI that allows you to produce content without hiring artists. If the end result is just as bad for artists, why is using one of those ethical?
Instead of paying for a static IP address, you can pay for a domain name and have a script on your home network update the domain name to point to your current IP address once a day. It's a pretty common practice.
I don't know, it's extremely unlike itch.io to be anti-lgbtq+. I wonder if it's similar to Mouthwashing, which was also delisted, and the creator and many fans complained, but then it turns out it was delisted for unrelated reasons. (We know 100% for sure it was for unrelated reasons because it was actually delisted last year and nobody noticed until now.)
The simplest solution IMO is to access it via an SSH or SFTP connection. I have these connections bookmarked in my file browser, so I can open them up just like any folder on my hard drive.
Some people use jellyfin as a client which has a kind of netflix-like interface. I haven't researched to find out if there's anything with a more spotify-like interface.
I guess he chose the night in the woods with the bear.