It was a joke.
It was a joke.
Exactly. Ever skip a stone on the surface of a lake? It’s like that, except it’s a continuous skip, with air instead of water, and you’re inside the stone.
Missing New Zealand?
It’s an education system and culture problem. You can’t force a 40-year-old woman to be curious and critical, but you can plant the seed and encourage the growth of those skills and behaviors in children. That confusion at hearing something different followed by the attitude of putting it in a box and dismissing it (“I don’t know what that is, but we have regular hot tea”) comes from a lifetime of being told to accept whatever over simplified answer they are told and be quiet whenever they ask questions.
Hmm, these numbers seem very low. I wonder how these scores were determined.
They weren’t, because LLMs don’t have reasoning ability, at least not in the way you as a human do. They are generative models, so the short answer is the model most likely made the numbers up, though there’s a chance they pulled them directly from some training data that’s likely completely unrelated to the user’s prompt.
What they generate is supposed to have similar multidimensional correlation as the input data, so there are complex relationships between what the question asked and the output it gave, but these processes don’t look anything like the steps you would go through to answer the same question.
I don’t think that follows, because those are temporary conditions, and consuming the drug is a choice made by an individual not currently under the influence. So it’s the person’s responsibility before they consume the drug to prepare their environment for when they are under the influence. If they’re so destructive under the influence that they can’t not commit a crime, it is their responsibility not to take the drug at all.
Line graphs of percentages not based at zero make it difficult for me to grok the magnitude of changes. Missed opportunity for the hue line color to match the actual hue in the vertical. Just being an angle value I have no idea what hue it’s supposed to be.
Been the only one in my family for years using Linux, but over the last few months struggles with Windows have basically resulted in all but one computer in the house being migrated to Linux.
Put it on my 10-year-old son’s desktop because Windows parental controls have been made overly complicated and require Internet connectivity and multiple Microsoft accounts to manage. Switched to Linux Mint, installed the apt sources for the parental control programs, made myself an account with permissions and one for him without permissions to change the parental controls, and done. With Steam he can play all of the games in his library.
Only my wife is still using Windows, but with ads embedded in the OS ramping up, and features she liked getting replaced with worse ones, she’s getting increasingly frustrated with Microsoft.
I don’t think that word is required. If anything, I think
sometimes you come and pull the lever
sounds more natural, if you have to add a word. They’re speaking more colloquially, rather than formally, but I don’t think the original is grammatically incorrect.
I’ve read it 3 times, and I can’t find a missing word. It makes sense to me. What word is missing?
No, they would respond exactly the way they already are responding. They would claim climate transition as a concept was made up by liberals, they would deny such a thing is possible, let alone happening, and they would enact policies in states they control to limit speech about it and punish people whose professions have to deal with it. You know, like they’re doing in Florida to doctors and teachers about LGBTQ+ and to scientists about the climate.
Or the octopus boss from Seaside Kingdom in Super Mario Odyssey:
Democratic candidates have raised far more than Republicans and can purchase ads at the cheaper rate offered to candidates. Republicans rely more heavily on independent expenditures from their campaign arm and allied super PACs, which have to pay much more per ad.
Gee, it’s almost like Republicans aren’t favored by a large proportion of the population who can donate up to the ~$3,300 federal limit directly to campaigns and have to rely on their wealthy benefactors donating much, much more per capita through side channels that shouldn’t even exist in a functional democracy.
How would you scientifically measure a difference between those two definitions?
plus why the right keeps mispronouncing her name
I mean, it’s just racism, right?
It serves as a racist dog whistle and a cowardly way to slight the vice president without resorting to overt name-calling.
Yeah, same as always. Important to keep pointing it out, but not exactly an earth-shattering revelation.
If it’s dangerous to repair it, it’s dangerous to own. That’s the domain for regulations by the government, not arbitrary software restrictions by software manufacturers.
They don’t implement these to keep you safe. They do it purely to make more money.
Before my comment I want to make clear I agree with the conclusion that abortion bans are clearly killing women at statistically significant rates.
That said, the stats reporting here doesn’t make sense:
Among Hispanic women, the rate of women dying while pregnant, during childbirth or soon after increased from 14.5% in 2019 to 18.9% in 2022. Rates among white women nearly doubled — from 20% to 39.1%. And Black women, who historically have higher chances of dying while pregnant, during childbirth or soon after, saw their rates go from 31.6% to 43.6%.
There’s no way 14.5% of Hispanic women in Texas who got pregnant died some time during pregnancy, during child birth, or soon after. That would be unprecedented for any time since the advent of modern medicine. And the chart above this paragraph does not agree with it either. It’s a chart of deaths per hundred THOUSAND live births, and the numbers for all racial groups are all under 100, so less than 0.1%.
The way it’s stated also doesn’t suggest it’s a percent increase because it says it rose from 14.5% to 18.9%. I can’t figure out what they’re trying to say, but they should definitely have been more careful with presenting the numbers.
Quantum field theory conserves mass-energy, so the new mass is coming from the energy in the Higgs field itself. It settles to a lower energy state and basically transfers that energy as mass to all of the particles that couple with it. Since it’s mass-energy and not just mass that generates gravitational distortions, the large-scale gravitational evolution of the universe probably won’t change, as this just moves things around a bit. It’s not creating energy out of nothing.
If the pig option included immune suppression drugs for the rest of your life, or for like 10 years until it wore out and you had to have another major surgery to replace it, mechanical valve plus blood thinners and a yearly blood draw sounds like the much better deal. I know blood thinners come with their own long term effects, but nothing compared to immune suppression.
Wormholes modeled with mainstream physics are incredibly unstable, to the point that they collapse before even a single particle is able to traverse them. Proposals for ways to stabilize a wormhole rely on models that have not yet been confirmed by experiment. So any answer you get is going to be little more than conjecture, and I don’t think you can get the scientific rigor it sounds like you’re looking for.