jakear

There was no war declared then. The actions were identical to Mexican immigrants coming over and going on murdering spees here. Would you not consider that an example of crime that should be accounted for?

And the falseness of that distinction is exactly my point. Nobody watches their baby get murdered and says "Well at least it was at the hands of a government agent! My country is still a very safe place to live!". Yet if you were to believe those stats that's exactly what they're claiming: deaths at the hands of government agents "don't count" when considering the safety of an area.

Does anyone know of a second source to back this claim up? These numbers are "estimates ... based on machine learning algorithms using data from various websites and apps". We all know machine learning algorithms produce the outputs you train them to, and the nature of the company producing the data combined with current events gives me reason to pause before accepting it at face value.

That said, I haven't been able to find a good second opinion on this.

Better than government banning flights all up.

Rather, the answer (as always) is carbon tax.

Yikes. You've gone totally off the rails. Have your handler review your prompting... 10 questions in a row with not a coherent thread connecting them does not a meaningful comment make.

This is probably accurate. Everything seems about the individual nowadays. Lot's of people aren't even having children anymore, preferring instead "travel" and "fun". Why would they give a shit about what will happen in 100 years?

Well that came out of left field. Care to elaborate?

Exactly. HN seems the worst of all wrt the apocalyptic fortune telling. Perhaps a group of well-off people would be expected to fear change the most. But to tell anyone else that in 50 years things will be bad... they'd laugh in your face.

"I'm right because the corporate interests governing openAI's output agree with me" isn't the dunk you think it is.