Generic sentiment that Orban is dictatorial coupled with an association of dictatorships and a dependency on the military? That’s probably enough to be getting on with, ain’t nobody got time to know about everything. But actually not OP, I probably would’ve drawn the same inferences and am enlightened by you.
Sadly it’s not objectively false, it’s merely vague. There’s no equivocation whereby it actually specifies that the unit of measure is the individual animal, rather than, say, kg. It’s just playing on your assumptions (I did assume biomass fwiw, but who cares).
But anyway, the point made by sheer fucking biomass imbalance is surely the thing to focus on here? Now that we know what it means, and are in agreement that the wording should be clearer, the statistic is still egregious, isn’t it? Humans have taken far too much of the world for themselves IMO. Vastly diminishing returns for us, devestatingly larger impact on the environment, the more we push it.
I think biomass is probably more important than sheer number for these comparisons. Although I would also accept ‘proportion of world’s arable land being used to sustain them’ as I suspect the ratios come out pretty similar for obvious reasons.
Wait until a fantasy author gets hold of your name and has a very successful 4 series before it turns into miserable dross. Not so unique any more are ya, Khalesi?
I’ve thought more about it. I bet there’s fucking loads in the placenta.
Oh I think those two are the same as the warrior, lol. My archetypes have a little tolerance. But there’s definitely a dual strand – the ‘dark’ hero (waylander) and the ‘light’ one (druss). Both ends up characterised by both aspects usually though, which is why in Gemmell theory they’re unified.
Best one was lion of Macedon. I still think about that sometimes.
Whereas the left get to hate everyone! Even each other! But the hardest part of the hate is reserved for those who would reduce the quality of our experiences by being dickheads. Say, by restricting access to art. I’m with you brother! Let us hate together! Maybe even each other!
Might be that. Although your body goes into absolute overdrive during pregnancy, and it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that some of the immune system reactions that kick in manage to eject some level of plastic microparticulates
Lol, well I can’t say I’m surprised your bullishness on the matter persists - although I would argue that A) the current architectural model is a single process running the translation in a user-scoped session, and B) given that a bot literally can’t recognise anything, any such implementation would be entirely conventional engineering, not waves hands AI voodoo magic. So I don’t share your stance. But also I genuinely don’t care, so that’s as much attention as I’m prepared to give this particular thought experiment.
For shared notes taking in a controlled environment - yes. It transparently happens anyway. For dynamic environments hosted by a separate service it’s a whole other can of worms. You now seem to be fairly clear you’re talking about the former, largely doable and indeed mostly implemented case. Nothing interesting left to talk about then.
I can absolutely see a single provider of collaborative online meetings spaces offering a ‘notes’ bot to the chat as a whole if they don’t already do so, since that’s already a thing. I see absolutely no reason why they should invest time in rearchitecting the conceptual boundaries of how private a user’s interaction with an AI is. I think you’ve missed some of the implications of collapsing the multiple to a single whilst retaining the illusion that it is a private space
I have strong doubts about this happening in the not-too-distant future just from bots ‘seeing’ each other in the call. Too many variables (different platforms, different times joining the call, different default languages, different preferences on how notes should be taken). This is why many platforms offer an option to use a single canonical transcription bot - this sort of thing isn’t quite as easy as you seem to imagine.
My brother an I came up with ‘Gemmell theory’ which breaks down all his characters by archetype. Female archer, strong willed, ‘manly’ in some regards, yet sexy. Warrior. Has seen some shit, probably had a deal with a demon and/or has a destiny. Bard. Light comic relief. Probably a mate of the warrior. May know a little light magic. You get the idea. I think there are only about 5 archetypes in Gemmell theory.
Whoda thunk that evangelicals be the most evangelical? Wild.
I mean it’s pretty graphic when he compares her ring to a football pump before going into licking it, but it’s also hilarious
Yeah. A couple of years after I first read it, I wrote a coursework essay about the unreliable narrator, using Lolita and Pale Fire as my primary texts (the latter also by Nabokov). What’s the problem with that? I’m assuming you’ve not read either if you’re getting this outraged, lol
Let us gay.
Lolita, The French Lieutenant’s Woman, IT. All books I read as a teen with explicit sexual content…
Easy enough. Tells you what languages are supported. Also helps you debug a bad language label. Although does have the disadvantage that you still need the name of every language in every language (the existing state) and you don’t get to suddenly sqrt your data requirements for storing that
Couldn’t agree with you more. In particular, the way most state pensions are structured imply infinite exponential growth. It’s gonna be a tough drug to wean off of.