For them, hate is fun (or the closest approximation thereof). It all makes sense after that.

Conservatives are really anti conservation for some strange reason.

That and The Onion could never outperform info wars in terms of absurdity… Still…

Greta Thunberg, swedish environmental activist and a favorite hate watch of conservatives.

It’s only controversial for those who are being called out on being terrible people on a moral level.

As a gay guy who’s definitely been in the room for gay jokes because they didn’t know I was gay: yes, you do. If you are only willing to call out bad behavior when you may get caught associating with it, then you aren’t actually an ally.

I can only control my own behavior. I cannot force another to change, they have to want to. The only thing I can do is draw the lines I’m willing to live within and live by them. And if not associating with bad people, even if they are family, is what I need to live in a healthy way, so be it.

The paradox of tolerance is poorly named. Tolerance is part of the social contract and one that breaks the contract is no longer protected by it. The intolerant are excusing themselves from the contract and the rest of us can and should exclude them from the society they harmed.

Someone posted a follow up elsewhere. He did in fact mean it that way.

The poor do not have the ability to manipulate mass quantities of people, the rich do. Because they are rich and have the resources and connections to accomplish this. They buy politicians and manipulate to cause the conditions you describe. If they were not rich, they could not do that.

Blaming the poor for being manipulated is bad faith. And victim blaming is not an effective rallying strategy.

I appreciate that they clarified that “bad” employees aren’t always bad. I very firmly fit into the fourth category listed (avoids looking for jobs because it’s the worst) and would definitely get trapped pretty easily.

In the first case, the subject (object? I always get them confused) is delay (which is singular), and the adjective is “15 minute”.

In the second, the thing is “minutes” (plural) modified by “15”.

It does. I was looking something up and ran face first into a redacted account that once had the answer I needed. I was very conflicted about it.

Congrats you’ve fallen into a common stats trap!

You can’t know what the average is for the hypothetical society to which you are comparing despite that being the optimal way to compare. If you were to actually attempt this comparison, you would take two comparable societies that differ only in religious adherence, controlling for non religious cultural things (hint: you can’t separate those easily if at all). And even if you did manage that, you’ve only shown correlation, not causation. Proving the latter is much harder.

If it sounds like I’m agreeing with you, I’m not! I’m saying you cannot know one way or another. But your inane, tautological statement of “the average domestic abuse rates for society are about average” drove me to inform others of how terrible this argument is. You’re clearly a lost cause.

If you want to prove your point, don’t try stats, you’re bad at it. Go for a logical argument, though I suspect you’re bad at that too.

Jasmine rice. Makes a huge difference if you like white rice. Tastes like from a restaurant and pleasantly sticky.

But can you tell me anything?

Yes… but how?

Absolutely. It’s why asking it for facts is inherently bad. It can’t retain information, it is trained to give output shaped like an answer. It’s pretty good at things that don’t have a specific answer (I’ll never write another cover letter thank blob).

Now, if someone were to have the good sense to have some kind of lookup to inject correct information between the prompt and the output, we’d be cooking with gas. But that’s really human labor intensive and all the tech bros are trying to avoid that.

Gradient descent is a common algorithm in machine learning (AI* is a subset of machine learning algorithms). It refers to using math to determine how wrong an answer is in a particular direction and adjusting the algorithm to be less wrong using that information.

And to trick them into banning ranked choice voting.

Edit: spelling