amenhotep

Huh! I'd always accepted the backronym without even thinking about it, but it makes so much more sense as arbitrary letters associated with sequences that are very easy to remember and distinguish than as a real weird acronym that just happens to have that property. You have reorganised my world in a slightly more reasonable way.

That's the trick, isn't it, though? Rationally it's especially a problem if it happens all at once, but realistically if your bank has an awful quarter then you're at fault whereas if every bank has an awful quarter then no one's at fault, it's a systemic issue, chances are you get to collect a bail out and keep going. It's a sort of prisoner's dilemma, a critical mass of banks needs to defect and each individual bank's incentive is to cooperate.

It's not tricking, though. The rules come from holy texts, they're perfect, if you find what seems like a loophole then it must obviously be intended. It's blasphemous, even, to think that you understand what god means better than he did when he had the texts written.

Seems odd that his precepts would be satisfied by stringing a wire from some sticks, sure, but he's god, presumably he has his reasons.

It's very simply explained by this being the most succinct way of wording it. Some methods of killing have verbs that suit mentioning the attacker - shoots, stabs. Some don't. "Rammed" or "runs over" isn't as precise as mentioning that a car was used, and adding "with car" makes it more awkward than it's felt to be worth.

Compare bombs. Very typical for a bomb attack to be "bomb goes off in crowd" or similar, rare for headlines to contort themselves with "terrorist plants bomb near crowd and triggers it to explode". But nobody worries about how such a construction assigns undue agency to the bomb and acquits the bomber; it's just linguistically awkward to mention him within the confines of a newspaper headline.

I read it as "I'm very clever and sensible. I definitely don't believe in souls."

Like so much other material produced by people who (I suspect deliberately) confuse religion with the subjective phenomenon of existence

It's not an ad hominem. In fact, it's perhaps the most good faith interpretation of your words possible. Ad hominem would be calling you stupid because you obviously know that you have a self and only your own stupidity could explain your inability to see how your self is generalisable. When you go around pretending you genuinely think maybe humans don't have selves, really the only way to take you seriously is to think that maybe you're a p-zombie.

Everyone involved in this including the police are civilians

I would suggest it says primarily that mimicking people's voices in meaningful ways is still far beyond LLMs and particularly small LLMs, but also more insurmountably that the prompt for Leavitt herself contains many tokens that the LLM prompt absolutely doesn't

Such as the values of the bets her own entourage has placed

And once the initial install of something was complete, you'd then be able to run it with no further ado :D

What on earth does defamation being a civil offense have to do with anything? It's a civil offense in the UK too, criminal defamation hasn't been a thing since 2010 and was barely a thing before then. If you want to confidently post how one thing is not at all like the other thing it might be a good idea to know the most basic facts about the other thing.

No it isn't. He says nothing about what his first choice good national park is. That section is about parks that people say are bad but aren't. His contention is merely that it is fine.

Yeah. We know. That's why it's so fucking awful.

In fact, a certain amount of investment in frauds is acceptable and desirable; if you give £10m to 9 frauds who spunk it straight up the wall and to 1 true visionary who builds a unicorn, that's money well spent. Plus of course you can always hope that the fraudster is good enough to sucker the next guy so you can get out.

Per Matt Levine, the optimum amount of fraud is non-zero. Tune your detector too loosely or too tightly and you'll miss out.

It's possible to mandate effective parental controls and then say "it's illegal to give your child access to facebook" and then just see what happens. You don't have to jump straight to making it technologically guaranteed by construction, maybe it's enough to just give parents the tools and an excuse to say no.

We don't need DNA testing locks on cans of beer that won't let you drink from them unless you're an adult, do we? It's perfectly possible for a parent to buy their child all the beer they want, and there's nothing stopping the children from trying to peer pressure them into it, and in many countries it's not even generally illegal to let your child drink beer! And yet almost all parents are able to almost completely enforce a reasonable level of restricted access, simply because society frowns upon it.

It is difficult not to dismiss this sort of proof out of hand, because every religion engages in it. Buddhism can probably (?) coexist with many deist religions, but few of them can coexist with each other.

It's a word that's commonly used incorrectly, yes.

Jail? Just for saying you're English?

You've put "helpless nematodes" in quotes despite the article literally not once saying that. It says:

Oyster mushrooms also happen to be one of the few carnivorous mushrooms – preying mercilessly on nematode worms.

That's it. That's the one sentence related to the topic. You have imagined things to get mad about.

Marshall didn't research anything, he just made it up.

Most of the War Thunder leaks just aren't. What frequently happens is that people go and dig up a manual that's published openly in America but controlled under ITAR (I think), post it, and Gaijin delete the post and ban them because it's technically illegal to "export" the information and trying not to get involved in crimes is usually a good idea.

Then, because "someone's leaked classified data on War Thunder again!!!" is a standard story that you can publish with zero effort and get lots of clicks on, people post formulaic articles about it. But it's nothing that would be of any use at all to actual spies, they can just go on the internet and read the manuals themselves. Nothing like as spectacular as the actual classified leaks, which were incredible but have not been anywhere near as common as people think based on reporting.

I'm delighted to see somebody else who refuses to use the pompous syntax Apple promote for these things. Entire thread full of people uncritically accepting that they should be referred to in actual conversation as AirPods Max as if it's a term that deserves more grammatical respect than most of them would give to attorneys general.

You don't verify at all, then. Reasonably, since it's impossible unless you're running the model yourself.

The Holocaust actually happened and was the systemic mass murder of millions of people.

People always say this and no, they still taste nasty. It would be interesting to compare today's sprouts to one of the original examples, they must've been truly foul if there's been such an improvement.

Not to mention that it they are, naturally, going to convert $600 to £600.

Mostly these days it just requires that you start to type "print" and then press tab when appropriate, though. I feel like I relatively rarely type brackets manually for function calls. Lisp syntax doesn't seem amenable to this particular affordance?

Yeah, that was exactly where he lost me. The US military doesn't need a remarkable amount of luck for these operations to be tactical successes, tactical risk wasn't the reason previous administrations didn't do them. The element that was missing was a complete disregard for second order consequences, and Claude has nothing to do with that whatsoever.

Oh no, not again.

This is a silly point. Courts aren't sitting around umming and ahhing about whether they should issue an arrest warrant to get x violent criminal off the streets, the system wastes minimal time in apprehending them and putting them in jail. At THAT point things slow to a crawl - because there's no longer the urgent incentive to act to prevent further harm.

Whereas in these cases the government is potentially harming the entire public every single day that the courts don't act.

I opened his post history and scrolled down a bit and literally the first thing I saw was a comment starting with "You're absolutely right" lol