You’re genuinely pathetic enough to try and imply that none of the victims are innocent?
I loathe “people” like you.
You’re genuinely pathetic enough to try and imply that none of the victims are innocent?
I loathe “people” like you.
Hey @[email protected], you were saying that “these were extremely surgical strikes, people in the vicinity weren’t harmed”?
Thousands of people injured, all guilty of something ofc, because Israel would never do an attack which might harm innocents. Right? /S
He specifically mentioned “in the context of the US”.
If he had been talking about any other English-speaking country, I’d say it would be somewhat irrelevant.
But it most certainly isn’t when talking about the US, especially southern US.
Well written. To add: “Boy” coming from a white person to a black man is even more offensive, what with all the chattel slavery history and whatnot.
Yeah I think the name sort of hints at that, for anyone using their thinking muscles
This is the sort of thing that I love reading on the internet.
Sorry to disappoint you, but most of that text is found offline — as it’s an excerpt from Douglas Adam’s “The Restaurant at the End of the Universe” (sequel to “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”). I probably should’ve attributed it.
If only doing things from the PoV of the speaker (you), that means 6~9 tenses for what most languages have 2 (past and non-past) or 3 (past, present, future).
And then you’d have to account who knows what, which version of a person you’re talking to. Say you’re having a conversation with someone before traveling in time to a time in which they’ve not timetraveled, so it’s either their subjective past or future, but then you continue the conversation, so you’d have to account for both the speakers perspective and the person being spoken to, who would then be subject to two different tense “totalities” since the conversation with them would have been taking place in two different times at the same time.
I seriously suggest reading Douglas Adams and Terry Pratchett for that sort of thing. I used to use Pratchett books as a substitute for weed when I was a bit over twenty.
*tense marking is fun in time travel.
One of the major problems encountered in time travel is not that of becoming your own father or mother. There is no problem in becoming your own father or mother that a broad-minded and well-adjusted family can’t cope with. There is no problem with changing the course of history—the course of history does not change because it all fits together like a jigsaw. All the important changes have happened before the things they were supposed to change and it all sorts itself out in the end.
The major problem is simply one of grammar, and the main work to consult in this matter is Dr. Dan Streetmentioner’s Time Traveler’s Handbook of 1001 Tense Formations. It will tell you, for instance, how to describe something that was about to happen to you in the past before you avoided it by time-jumping forward two days in order to avoid it. The event will be descibed differently according to whether you are talking about it from the standpoint of your own natural time, from a time in the further future, or a time in the further past and is futher complicated by the possibility of conducting conversations while you are actually traveling from one time to another with the intention of becoming your own mother or father.
Most readers get as far as the Future Semiconditionally Modified Subinverted Plagal Past Subjunctive Intentional before giving up; and in fact in later aditions of the book all pages beyond this point have been left blank to save on printing costs.
The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy skips lightly over this tangle of academic abstraction, pausing only to note that the term “Future Perfect” has been abandoned since it was discovered not to be.
Here’s the actor with a story that includes a bit about coming up with Boss Nass’s voice, iirc
Youre mistaking indifference for hatred.
You’re not supposed to sit on the motor, my man.
Youre supposed to put it in a frame of some sort.
Now I definitely agree with the point you’re making, but unless you’re like 300+ kgs, 500w should be fine for personal transport.
I had one board with a 500w engine that went 63km/h with a full battery and my ~75 kg of mass on it. It didn’t have much torque, though, but it was fast. On the other hand, these rentable e-scooters we have, have like 350W engines and are limited in speed to 25kmh, but have amazing torque, even my brother can get up steep hills on those, and he’s genuinely 1.5x the man I am, size wise (at least). Hills that my 500w fast scoot didn’t manage with me on it.
So it’s not just the raw power output of the engine which matters, is my point.
Personally I think we need a framework paradigm shift. I know it would require a ton, worldwide, but just like how pedestrians got sidewalks in the early 20th century when cars took over the roads, we now need another split again. In that there should be three lanes, pedestrian, light vehicles, then actual road.
With like a small escoot and a bike you could still use pedestrian ways as well, but any faster or larger e-transports could have their own lane to use. Small e-cars as well. No power limits, but some sort of little regulation.
You watched the John Oliver episode, didn’t you?
You cannot do that with an LLM.
If I want to go and read a Harry Potter book, I presumably have to pay someone something (excluding library services because those are services provided for actual people, not AI’s)?
This LLM clearly has read Harry Potter and Chamber of Secrets, and is merely refusing to display the data it already has on it. “Data” in this case meaning the work, the book.
I’m not for current copyright laws, but I find defending these hypocritical companies despicable. I’m sure you’re able to imagine that if it suited OpenAI, they might argue the exact opposite of what they’re arguing. Companies don’t really argue things in good faith, rather always arguing for the thing that will be the most profitable for them, no matter the veracity.
OpenAI is arguing “we’re not using copyrighted works in a way which would require us to pay anything, the machine is merely extrapolating patterns”.
But then it does go on to quote materials verbatim, which shows it’s not “just” ‘extracting patterns’.
If I were to put up a service called “quote a book” or something, and it just had a non-AI bot which would — when given the book and pages — quote copyrighted works, would that be okay for me to make money on, without paying anyone I’m quoting? Even if they started to use my service to literally copy entire books?
Why are you defending massive corporations who could just pay up? Isn’t the whole “corporations putting profits over anything” thing a bit… seen already?
Well, they can surrender.
Not all of them all the time, but a lot of them are smart enough to do something “dumb” like drive to a Ukrainian village to ask for directions and “get taken as pows”.
So yeah, yes and no, as the answer to your question.
Donating your body to science is not the same as donating it to be sold on the open market.
In the US, it pretty much is the exact same thing though.
any normal person would consider this steam. This isn’t a chemistry or physics class.
Just because you didn’t pay attention in physics in basic education doesn’t mean no-one did.
When is the last time you heard someone refer to someone’s vape productions as “steam” in real life? “Goddamn vapers steaming all over”?
Vapour and steam are different, because you don’t need 100c for water vapour. Ever heard of clouds? Mist? Fog? None of those are steam, none of those are 100 degrees Celsius, but they are all water vapour.
That’s what vaporisers produce.
Ah, so you don’t understand the misunderstanding, or you’re purposefully using an illfitting word.
Vaporisers produce vapour.
VAPOUR:
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
noun
a substance diffused or suspended in the air, especially one normally liquid or solid.
"dense clouds of smoke and toxic vapour
Water vapor is the visible part of steam, and for the purposes of this discussion, we’re talking about boiling liquids
There’s no visible part of steam, despite colloquially people sometimes using language in a way that might make you think there is.
So why would you insist on using the wrong word after being corrected? (That’s a rhetoric question, because I already know the answer.)
Based on… what exactly?
The clear implication is that “number of Hezbollah member > victims = no innocent victims.”
And then you instantly jump into defending genocide. Holy fucking shit I honestly can’t communicate with words how disgustingly pathetic I find that.
No, I’m not gonna engage with your whataboutism and start arguing with you about how “Hezbollah deserved this absolutely pathetic terrorist attack.”
“Brought it on himself brought it on himself”
You fuckers still haven’t realised that Hammurabi’s law makes the whole world blind, huh? That was almost 4000 years ago, ffs. Read a book, preferably a modern one and not some tome of propaganda from thousands of years ago.
You’re literally defending the death of a 9-year old girl. You have to be sick in the fucking head to do that. Honestly.