read where?
I exist or something probably
read where?
Just going to point out: russian culture doesnt use nazi in the same way we do; largely they dont view nazis as ontologically bad because of the bigotry or the antisemitism or the genocide of many peoples, but because they were an existential threat to russia or russian ethnicities. a lot of the associations westerners have about nazis are just not widespread in russia. this is why there are a lot of seemingly idiosyncratic phrasings in this kind of stuff.
this is an explicit design feature of federation: free association. this is one of the primary reasons it is in theory better than something centralized. this post is layers of wrong.
nothing you’ve said is worth responding to in a novel way, see earlier comment.
“when they’re drunk at 8am”, he didnt say “we”
also note the other quotes in the article that similarly single out Crow.
see certain optical illusions in a way that other vision models cannot.
eh… but not in a way that is really like what humans see. which is the articles claim, but it makes a clasically cs approach to nuerology: zero effort to prove the quite substantial claim.
Word soup
that is most certainly not word soup. it’s also an accurate statement, though uncharitable to the authors claims.
Also, the detail in description of their “quantum” inspiration (an effect not unique to quantum mechanics in fact, at that level of description) reads like they skimmed wikipedia’s intro to xyz topic, whether or not the author understands the topics more deeply.
protests are famously a time people put themselves in harms way.
sorry are you saying people should pronounce their own names in ways they don’t prefer to be “correct”? Also etc etc language guides are descriptive not prescriptive.
If they can target the underlying architecture of the models like nightshade does, it will actually be quite hard to deal with for the surveillance companies.
Datas is correct if you are referring to multiple distinct populations of data. Which in this case works.
afaik no known cases
Did you actually look?
Sibling in existence I know asbestos must be airborne. You aren’t refuting anything by repeatedly saying that. Respond to the words I am saying or I can only assume you are copy pasting talking points.
It’s extremely easy to disturb asbestos, it does not take a large chronic exposure to get health consequences, it takes a very small amount of acute exposure or even less chronic exposure. Generally you will be fine from incidental one-off exposures, but if you live in a home with say, asbestos tiles in your kitchen, or asbestos in the paint or drywall, it can be very easy to build exposure from reno or damage from normal home wear. Not to mention it’s extremely expensive to modify because of the required controls, meaning it disproportionately effects low income households, who both struggle to afford preventative maintenance, and struggle to afford the reno.
There’s a reason asbestos ppe is decon controls roughly equivalent to mercury, lead, and beryllium.
Removed by mod
The internet as the internet companies percieved it would look like and sold it as absolutely and completely vanished, yeah.
The internet is a funny analogue!
Because it experienced the dot com crash under almost the same sort of circumstances.
Asbestos is not harmless to people living with it, all structures need repair and modification eventually (regularly) and unknown asbestos cutting or chipping can be incredibly hazardous.
Engineers of the past had very limited design knowledge, so generally subscribed to the “I don’t know how to do this. Oh well, more good, morer bettererer.”
Need is directly in opposition to please. This makes your addition an ironic use of please, and not a polite one, which actually fits the ops observation better than the initial comment did.
could you expand on that?