ideonek

World would be better place if womem vote exclusively for women.

Just three American behemoths — Amazon, Microsoft, and Google…

Do it! What are you waiting for? Do it!

I honestly belive that donations are like savings. For people who do then this is the first expense out of their income. People who try to do it out of what’s left after all important stuff is covered really do it, becouse we all spant “all” every month. What’s different, is the definition of “all” if you manage to hide important stuff there buy “paying yourself first” it’s much easier to cover thing you truly care about.

Fish at the catch-and-take fishery are woried about their reliance on the pound.

At this point if “login by google” was disabled we would feel like blinded. This is not a problem, it’s an emergency. All public services withdrawing from Microsoft must be a bare minimum.

I’m not trying to invalidate your point. I’m adding to it. It’s one more reason why this TIL don’t tell US anything useful. It nither ralible or unexpected data.

It’s not a cry for help. It’s esthetics. Man chose more violent methods, and women chose things that seems more gentle. Or medicine is much more sucesful in treating overdose than point-blank headshots.

it’s about “success” rate. Man, mostly choose more lethal form like guns, while women often choose pills. Women acctualt make most attempts than man, but are more often rescued.

I suspect in China there are cultural reason that unify the “preferred method off atempt”

“… for task that can be completed sucesfully with copy-pasting output with little to no changes”: the same not peer-reviewed MIT study published hasetly “to protect the children”.

We are better than this.

OK, let’s slow down for one secound.

1. if you re-designed it with complex multiplication problem instead od writtng tasks, and calculators instead of chat gpt - and change nothing else - you would get exactly the same result. If you reduce the challange to minimum, how do you expect brain to respond?
2. The “we have this not-reviewed singular study based on 50 people we should raise the alarm NOW” is every sensational.

There are so many problems with AI, and we need so many checks and balances. Sure. But let’s not change it into another “our pop-science vs their pop-science” kind of problem.

I think that the point is that instances can choose thier own rules. Article is about an instance. Not about the entire platform.

I’m glad you understood me know, thank you. I adapted your approach to learning languages - speaking slow and laudly. It worked like a charm.

I like to think I would less judgmental about people attepting to communicate with me in the only language I know. Maybe approach like that is the reason work is the only place where people spent time with you ;)

That’s a healthy approach.

hmm, so having or not having kids have impact on your sence of workplace community during remote work?

Does it add up to you?

No, I think that’s the fair take. But to me, it’s similar when people say “Studies may teach me a thing, but I’m glad I went there because I met all this people”… Yes, you spent X years there. You’d probably bound with someone over that time if it was a different place as well. It’s perfectly understandable to have a need for structure. I just wish that work isnt that sole source of structure in most people live.

On the other hand, when people show they who they really are… you should believe them. There are some views that are either ignorant or bad will. I think evidence of those is a reasonable deal-breaker. And it’s perfectly ok if you have your line drown somewhere else as well.

According to my kids, candies are the most logical place to get most your nutritions from. Where else could you get so many calories?

If most of your time at work is spent socializing, couldn’t you cut your work time and build your community elsewhere?

If most of your time at work you spent on honest hard-work working, how much community are you really building?

Cut you calories. Life doesn’t happen at work.

Are you asking if I insist that the minds behind my secure private chat have some moral standing and common sense? One would hope so. I wouldn’t trust encryption made by anti-vaxer more than I would trust a plane put tougher by flat-earther. I don’t want to be the hero of the next leopard eat my face song.

Come on, work being the sole source of community is the problem here. What are we even talking about?

This is the part that resonated with me the most as the casual user. The interface is, so confusing that the differences between various forms of chats seems deliberately unclear. And all that’s “useful” is opt-in. And Groups - most used in corporate or project setting, can’t be encrypted at all? That’s… peculiar.

Again, thanks for the eye-opener.