it

I ran it with Qwen3-8B, and it responded to all input in the chat with

Could not connect to the server.

There's also a standalone Grok app at least on iOS.

I picked up the cello about a year ago and already it's more enjoyable than most other things I do. The idea of replacing that with AI is silly. Why stop doing something I love?

"We are assembling a lean, cracked team..." Perfect.

It was just a search away. https://docs.deno.com/deploy/tutorials/vite

I'm making an app with a Typescript+React front end and a Go back end. While in local development, I serve it with Vite. Could I use Deno in place of Vite+Node?

How does that happen if the display is right up next to your eye?

Isn't one of the biggest problems with these VR headsets the nearness of the display to the eye? It seems like prolonged exposure to this would result in myopia that would worsen faster than it does when exposed to screens that are farther away.

Isn't it going to give people a terrible case of myopia to have a screen this close to their eyes?

gab.ai lets you choose the AI character you're talking to, so you're not stuck with artificial race balancing or whatever political rectitude is fashionable.

I like the idea, but got this when I tried to run it on my Mac:

lips node:internal/modules/esm/resolve:853 throw new ERR_MODULE_NOT_FOUND(packageName, fileURLToPath(base), null);

And isn't it ominous how it's "Multi" and not just "Two"...

And it will be called "geequal".

Well sure, because inflation comes from loans, and with high interest rates people are less inclined to take out loans.

To view this page without the annoying animations, I recommend printing it to PDF or paper. Safari reader mode doesn't work on it.

Kotlin does this.

That's really interesting. Thanks for providing something substantial.

Right, simple arrogance.

I refuted flat earthers, and I learned why they think what they do, and why I think it's round.

Arrogance is not an argument.

Fair enough, so 4 of them are not molecules with three atoms.

However, that leaves two that are: ozone (O3) and NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2). Are you saying these are in fact greenhouse gases?

Hacker News routinely allows shill pieces written by guys sponsored by people advocating the climate catastrophe narrative. I haven't seen those getting flagged.

Here are six counter-examples provided by GPT:

Molecules with three atoms that are not considered greenhouse gases include:

Ozone (O3): While ozone does absorb some solar radiation, it's primarily involved in blocking ultraviolet light from the Sun, rather than acting as a greenhouse gas in the way that CO2, CH4, or N2O do.

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2): Although it's a significant air pollutant and plays a role in smog formation, it is not primarily considered a greenhouse gas.

Nitric Oxide (NO): Like NO2, nitric oxide is more involved in air pollution and is not considered a greenhouse gas.

Hydrogen Peroxide (H2O2): This compound is more known for its reactive properties and is not considered a greenhouse gas.

Carbon Monoxide (CO): While carbon monoxide can have indirect effects on global warming by reacting with other substances in the atmosphere, it is not itself considered a significant greenhouse gas.

Iodine Trichloride (ICl3): This is a more exotic example and not commonly found in the atmosphere. It is not a greenhouse gas.

Okay, he wasn't the president, but he was the 7th provost. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Koonin

Where is the data that supports your claim that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? How do you know what the Earth would be like without it?

Fine, how about this? "Since 1880, average global temperatures have increased by about 1 degrees Celsius (1.7° degrees Fahrenheit)"

https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/climatechange/science#:~:text=Sinc...:

Another cowardly downvote by someone without an argument.

This got downvoted but whoever did it failed to provide a counter argument.

Bias is possible on any topic. How do you know Epstein's claims are false? Can you debunk a single one with evidence?

You can ask "qui bono?" about people who believe the Climate Change narrative as well. For example, here's $5 billion allocated to this sort of thing:

https://www.epa.gov/inflation-reduction-act/climate-pollutio....

Why not show the arguments and allow the debate to happen? Maybe we'd all learn something.

This sharp rise of global CO2 level, combined with the small rise in global temperature of 1 degree F over the past 100 years [1], is evidence against the idea that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=how+much+has+the+global+temp...