No it doesn’t. This is a problem with our laws, and it’s not true across the us, only in some of the less intelligent of our states.
The reason people think our health care sucks is because it’s for profit which inevitably leads to crappy/no care for the poor. And for that reason it does suck.
But of course, mindless bashing on the US? Upvotes, no matter how little it makes sense.
It’s secondary to point that one states problems be applied to the whole country, although thats probably closer to using the worst of any country in the EU to paint the whole EU.
The point is that this is relatively new, and this is not why people generally think the health care is bad in the us. We actually have great healthcare if you have money. not so much if you don’t. This is the general reason why us healthcare is looked down upon.
I feel like “it is what it is” is too often shit on.
I had a boss from whom I learned about staying calm and keeping steady course.
His favorite saying was “it is what it is” and it was always in the context of simply recognizing the reality for what it is, instead of hoping or wishing it was something else or lamenting over how it should have gone a different way. Then, from the point of accepting that “it is what it is” we would focus on how to get to where we wanted to be.
Sure it can be used dismissively, but I feel like people always just dismiss it as a cliche when it’s actually usually a very good philosophy.
Why is that a criticism? This is how it works for humans too: we study, we learn the stuff, and then try to recall it during tests. We’ve been trained on the data too, for neither a human nor an ai would be able to do well on the test without learning it first.
This is part of what makes ai so “scary” that it can basically know so much.
My question to you is how is it different than a human in this regard? I would go to class, study the material, hope to retain it, so I could then apply that knowledge on the test.
The ai is trained on the data, “hopes” to retain it, so it can apply it on the test. It’s not storing the book, so what’s the actual difference?
And if you have an answer to that, my follow up would be “what’s the effective difference?” If we stick an ai and a human in a closed room and give them a test, why does it matter the intricacies of how they are storing and recalling the data?
What you are basing this “it clearly cannot” on? Because an early iteration of it was mediocre at it? The first ICE cars were slower than horses, I’m afraid this statement may be the equivalent of someone pointing at that and saying “cars can’t get good at going fast.”
But I specifically asked “in this regard”, referring to taking a test after previously having trained yourself on the data.
I guess it comes down to a philosophical question as to what “know” actually means.
But from my perspective is that it certainly knows some things. It knows how to determine what I’m asking, and it clearly knows how to formulate a response by stitching together information. Is it perfect? No. But neither are humans, we mistakenly believe we know things all the time, and miscommunications are quite common.
But this is why I asked the follow up question…what’s the effective difference? Don’t get me wrong, they clearly have a lot of flaws right now. But my 8 year old had a lot of flaws too, and I assume both will get better with age.
I would have argued with you before today, because a hot dog is clearly a taco. But I guess if tacos are sandwiches, then by the transitive property, it is also a sandwich.
If you just rtfa you would see that he’s also barred from directing a third party to say something.
But, nah, reading and educating yourself takes precious time away from being outraged. Hell, sometimes it makes it even harder to find a reason to be outraged.
I responded literally directly to what was said by pointing out that article notes that the gag order includes a ban on him directing other people to speak for him.
And I didn’t actually address it? How does one even reason themselves into such a ridiculously mindless position?
Former White House Situation Room officer Mike Stiegler revealed that then-President Donald Trump never called down to check on then-Vice President Mike Pence as Trump fans hunted him at the Capitol, and that we were “that close” to losing the VP....
No, I don’t. Trump came dangerously close to creating a constitutional crisis that day, that he could have leveraged to retain power, by getting his dumbass cultists to attack the capitol. Had they succeeded in killing the VP, the one who is supposed to certify the election, there would have legit been a constitutional crisis.
So not being open to changing your mind was a projection. I figured as much, its almost always people thinking they see themselves in other people when they make baseless accusations.
Of course it matters because I certainly don’t believe we should go back to that at all and I have no idea how you could had possibly gotten yourself there.
Because nobody is upset that he found her attractive.
You should absolutely read the rest of this thread because someone outright said that I deviate from the norm by finding some of them attractive, and even tried to equate being attracted to them to having the desire to murder.
But that being said, as I already very clearly and explicitly said, I agree laws should be in place to protect minors from predators. I’m also fine with it being based on age.
It’s just that you are, on one hand, saying legality and morality are not the same (correctly, imo) but then arguing with me that it’s morally bad in many cases so we need to have a clear law (which I also agree with), which makes what he did immoral. Maybe they were emotionally and intellectually compatible. I don’t know, as I don’t know either of them, and everyone close to it has said it was a good relationship. Who am I to say it was bad?
I addressed all of the data you provided, even asking for further clarification for one of the sources. You just hand-waved my point, with data, away. Even now trying to claim that I didn’t provide it. And you’re accusing me of ignoring data. Lol Just another projection. You’re good at doing this.
Get rid of them. (lemmy.world)
"Thought-Terminating Cliches" (lemmy.world)
Remember how ChatGPT totally aced the bar exam? Wow! yeah, turns out that was just a lie (www.nytimes.com)
archive archive.ph/is57b
Indiana judge rules tacos, burritos are sandwiches (www.wishtv.com)
MSNBC Guest Says He Spotted Trump ‘Editing’ Speeches Allies Made Outside the Courtroom (www.mediaite.com)
Some context:...
I have to teach my daughter different things than my son (lemmy.world)
Jan. 6 Situation Room Officer Reveals Trump Fans ‘Came That Close’ To Murdering VP In Stunning New Interview (www.mediaite.com)
Former White House Situation Room officer Mike Stiegler revealed that then-President Donald Trump never called down to check on then-Vice President Mike Pence as Trump fans hunted him at the Capitol, and that we were “that close” to losing the VP....
Jerry Seinfeld’s Teen Girlfriend Saga Resurfaces After Duke Walkout (www.thedailybeast.com)