Neither is required, the statement is subjective so without a qualifier it is implied to be one's own thoughts. Adding either is just flare.

Your internal gender didn't just fall out of a coconut tree.

Explain how they make money buying property?

Landlords inflate prices of property.

Technology is always progressing but nobody can say what the next big thing will be, if you really think you are that prescient you can make loads of cash predicting things. Companies are hungry for the next big thing though and will do everything to convince us that they have it, AI is an enticing grift because it's so misunderstood. The next big thing wasn't AR or VR or the metaverse, and I don't think it's going to be generative AI either, it's already plateauing and not profitable, even with billions of dollars behind it.

Turns out having a value proposition beyond "we bundled a lot of software together that you can get on any distro" has allure.

Same energy (hah) as a corporate venn diagram.

The liver is one of the most complex organs in the human body. It is responsible for a wide spectrum of toxin breakdown and chemical synthesis. The heart only needs to pump blood, though it's uptime is very impressive. If your liver stops working you won't die immediately but if your heart stops working your body will be starved of oxygen in mere minutes. Ultimately though what the heart does is mechanical and simple.

I wouldn't advocate for someone eating palm oil simply for their own personal health. However if you want to talk about the environment way more land is cleared for livestock than oil palm, even if you just focus on the locations where oil palm is grown. And palm oil is usually replacing animal fats in cooking due to it's saturated fat content, stuff like lard and ghee.

Something like Microsoft Word or Paint is not generative.

It is standard for publishers to make indemnity agreements with creatives who produce for them, because like I said, it's kinda difficult to prove plagiarism in the negative so a publisher doesn't want to take the risk of distributing works where originality cannot be verified.

I'm not arguing that we should change any laws, just that people should not use these tools for commercial purposes if the producers of these tools will not take liability, because if they refuse to do so their tools are very risky to use.

I don't see how my position affects the general public not using these tools, it's purely about the relationship between creatives and publishers using AI tools and what they should expect and demand.

Those analogies don't make any sense.

Anyway, as a publisher, if I cannot get OpenAI/ChatGPT to sign an indemnity agreement where they are at fault for plagiarism then their tool is effectively useless because it is really hard to determine something in not plagiarism. That makes ChatGPT pretty sus to use for creatives. So who is going to pay for it?

What vegan thinks you can turn a cat vegan? That's like thinking you can turn a cat hegelian or something.

While I agree that using copyrighted material to train your model is not theft, text that model produces can very much be plagiarism and OpenAI should be on the hook when it occurs.

It's not hypocritical to care about some parts of copyright and not others. For example most people in the foss crowd don't really care about using copyright to monetarily leverage being the sole distributor of a work but they do care about attribution.

The words of either someone immensely privileged or deathly allergic to bees.

We are allergic to exploiting great solutions that already exist. Everyone wants to be "disruptive".

It reminds me of the investment that went into hyperloop stuff when our current best transit solutions aren't anywhere close to full saturation in the US. Similarly our current best green technologies are far from being fully exploited.

Most people I've talked to, which is mostly nonvegans, think it is unethical to let cats outside because they will kill wild animals. This is a more hypocritical stance than the reverse (a vegan who lets their cat outside) if you understand veganism.

You're also throwing around the word forced. People force choices on their pets, children, and even fellow adults all the time, but there are different levels of force. Putting down food for a cat that gladly eats it is a far cry away from shoving something down their throat or leaving it out until they have no choice but to eat it. I'd argue that it's often very appropriate to make food choices for a cat you live with, if a cat begs for some lasagna or a donut you probably shouldn't give it to them.

Edit: Also when people talk about forcing cats onto a vegan diet you have to realize the alternative is forcing livestock to suffer serious trauma for their entire life and then die. It's not hard to see that one of these is a more serious abuse of our power over other animals.

Humans are good at pulling nutrients from all sorts of sources but those sources have to actually contain the nutrients in the first place, we don't have some magic ability to just eat one thing with no supplementation and get all our nutrients.

Dogs are omnivores.

Supplements are already in the livestock (that we feed the cats) feed and animal based cat food. Yes it's harder to get most cats to take a pill than a human adult, but that really isn't necessary it can just be put in the food itself, and it is.

Do you have a problem with the word chud? Because you sure sound like one.

Then shouldn't it either be changed to "of any cause" or terminate after "dying".

This sounds like in the spy movies when they give multiple people different plans to find out who the mole is.

SulMatul. She does in depth game videos that are a combination of playthrough retrospective, when I'm done binging one I feel like I've both played the game and talked with someone for hours about it.

Daniel Naroditsky. For some reason I love to watch chess while eating, and he's my favorite chess streamer.

Posy. Videos with an art, technology, and science bent but you never really know what to expect other than the vibes being immaculate.

The brain doesn't do so well in isolation of stimulus for a long period of time.

Yes, the foods that are high in omega 3s and 6s like fish, nuts, and seeds tend to be low in saturated fat and high in unsaturated fat compositionally. So it is not necessary to consume a lot of saturated fat in our diets, we should avoid coconut oil, palm oil, butter, and lard wherever possible.

Eating refined sugar is bad for you, we should avoid things like sugary beverages for example. But this does not mean that whole fruit is bad for us, and definitely doesn't mean that whole veg and grain is bad for us. The fiber in fruit blunts the effects of the fructose, interestingly fiber also blunts the effects of saturated fat from whole coconuts.

People love telling this mythology about how the low fat guidelines made us sick, but it's pretty much bunk. People didn't follow the guidelines for the most part as macro ratios have hardly varied over time in the US. Corporations also leveraged the idea to sell junk foods as healthier alternatives by lowering the fat content, but keeping or even raising the amount of refined carbohydrates.

Nobody in this conversation is saying sugar is good for you. I was just pushing back against the OP of this chain who said that meat is of no concern to diabetics, and said sugar and other carbohydrates are the main culprit. Other carbohydrates would even include fiber which would be quite beneficial to diabetics. But also from the studies I've seen I'd be more worried about someone who puts a spoonful of coconut oil or butter in their coffee than someone who puts a spoonful or two of sugar, and not just because of diabetes but cardiovascular disease as well.

It's funny to me that people are upvoting your misinformation because they can't be bothered to look something up themselves when it only takes a second, bullshit dietary science spreads so easily on the Internet.

Those are not saturated fats, and omega 9 and not all omega 3s and 6s are essential fats. Specifically alpha linolenic and linoleic acid are essential.

Edit:
In case it comes up later I do not want it to look like I'm shifting arguments so I'll add this. Even if it were essential, something being essential does not mean it is harmless at any quantity, and something being unessential does not mean it is dangerous. I also did not say raw dogging glucose was good for you, it definitely isn't. I said saturated fat was worse than refined sugar, so the broad category of "carbohydrates" is definitely not some boogeyman.

Saturated fat is a stronger culprit for metabolic syndrome than even refined sugar, but yeah, "carbohydrates" are to blame. 🙄 You aren't getting diabetes because you ate too many sweet potatoes.

Seems weird to just mash all these foods together. Not all of these are whole foods so I don't know by what criteria certain things are included or excluded. Also not all protein is created equal. Pea protein is going to be better than wheat protein for example.

It triggers me that this is a pie chart. First of all it implies there are advantages even if they aren't keyed in. But most importantly pie charts only measure the weight of something within within its own context as a fraction of the whole.

LLMs don't "know" anything. The true things they say are just as much bullshit as the falsehoods.

What's weird is assuming that if someone doesn't cause as much harm as you in some regard they must be doing worse in some other regard. Like are serial killers all saints in other aspects of their life and that is their big cruelty outlet?

Some of these arguments are just baffling, especially the ones about food production itself. Can you explain to me how a vegan encourages more slave labor and steals from indigenous folk? A diet full of animal products uses more land and labour.

I think the Berlin Interpretation is quite outdated and was not even good at the time, but I will defend it on this one point. It does not provide a threshold for what is and is not a roguelike, the Berlin Interpretation just lists criteria that are important to consider when determining how roguelike something is. The heap paradox is an exercise for the reader.

A roguelite is ostensibly something that has enough features of a roguelike to be noted, but not enough to be considered one. And I'd argue there is way more to what makes a roguelike than permadeath with no meta progression.

Also Slay the Spire has less meta progression than Issac. Hades is in a whole nother ball park.

Refined sugar is bad for you. Foods high in cholesterol are associated with negative health outcomes, it probably isn't actually due to the cholesterol, but avoiding cholesterol and therefore those foods is a good thing.

Here for beans.

Fans

Literally Bill Gates.

Who's labor?

I was really enjoying WotR but sometime in the third act it started to feel like a bit of a slog and I haven't returned to it yet. I really didn't enjoy the homm style tactical battles and resource logistics management thing.

Margarine these days is mostly a mix of either palm or coconut oil with something like soybean or canola oil. I wouldn't be surprised if butter had more naturally occurring trans fats.

I can't imagine it doing much. Samuels is a joke, Omar has no serious competition and neither does Klobuchar. It's unfortunate because despite what you think about these politicians, competition is a good thing to prevent stagnation.