bediger4000

No. I think it would be unethical of me to offload decisions that important to programs that create output on a statistical basis.

But you haven't. You've had maybe 40 years to read books, web pages, watch movies listen to music etc. Every LLM has millions of books, nearly every web page ever written, and every image available on the web. There's not even a rough order of magnitude comparison, your content consumption is not even a rounding error on the amount of text every LLM has in its weights.

Quantity has a quality all its own.

Slight correction:

NYT: omg Democrats did something devious! stop them! Don't look at the Trump rape allegations while you're at it.

Why was reddit ever ranked? Every time I asked a question, I'd get stale jokes and pedantry. I learned to not expect anything useful from redditors.

Don't forget make one by 3D printing.

This is almost ex post facto. In January, every Dem was very gloomy. They said they could probably win the House majority, but a Senate majority is out of reach.

Beyond that, what law was broken? This has been litigated in Alaska (elections are still the province of the states, not Trump) and found legal. This is a conservative biased NYT hit piece, trying to gin up an October Surprise Scandal.

As far as Trump deciding to tip over the election chess board and eat a bishop, if it doesn't go his way, he'll do anything. Democrats aren't morally responsible for Trump, Trump has agency of his own. Trump can do the adult, ethical, legal thing and let Alaska run its own elections. If he does otherwise, that's totally on him.

Why do this? Isn't the old such agency, the NSA, good enough?

Again, let's think of two children fighting over their shares of a cookie. Child A says he should get all of the cookie. Child B says that wouldn't be fair, the cookie should be split evenly, half and half.

The adult in the room decides to promote common ground, and gives 75% of the cookie to A and 25% to B.

These kinds of quizzes are mostly attempts to get PII out of you, aren't they? At least that's what I've been taught.

This is an illegitimate argument in the context of Second Amendment. The "second amendment people" are pretty vocal proponents of strict adherence to the US constitution - hence the name of the group.

Whatever reasons Trump was voted in for, second amendment people should insist on him following the constitution. He's not. That's not even arguable on rhetorical grounds. Trump regularly defies court orders, spends money on things not authorized by Congress, and impounds money allocated by Congress. That behavior is the constitutional definition of tyranny. Therefore second amendment people should be at least metaphorically, if not literally, up in arms about him.

Again inarguably, they are not. Therefore their self proclaimed basis is a lie. They are just blowhards and we should disarm them ASAP. They have no sound reason for existing as an armed group.

No obvious date but it says: Computer recently visited Ken Thompson at Lucent's Bell Labs

Maybe early dotcom boom days?

Client/server asymmetry is what will sell big companies on Scion. Central control is important to build an organization around which is how managers become directors become Vice presidents. Also licensing is better this way. Got the choice of giving away clients and charging like crazy for servers, or charging for both.

Freedom of speech is a first amendment issue, my friend. The "second amendment types" OP refers to are the people who claim that citizen ownership of any and all types of firearms is a buttress against tyrannical government. Since the Trump admin is at least arguably a tyrannical government, it seems legit to at least ask where the previously vociferously pro-gun people are right now. Many should be at least warning of potential tyranny, but appear not to be doing so.