Yes, if there’s something every good scientist knows, its to present the best current understanding of something, and then the exact opposite of that, framed as being equally valid. For sure this is the way forward and good on you Zuck!

The closer you are to no money, the more expensive life gets

So they slapped some reinforcement learning on top of their LLM and are claiming that gives it “reasoning capabilities”? Or am I missing something?

The old Chevy Sparks are basically golf carts with 4 doors and permission to drive in the roads. They are the least “techy” EVs I’ve seen in person as they are really just a battery swap with the minimally-appointed ICE version of the car, which is very sparse on the electronic doodads.

Sounds like this “study” (aka a self-reported, retrospective, epidemiological survey - which is a type of statistics that I think just confuses the public to call a study but whatever) needs a lot more work to say anything with certainty. The kicker in the article is this I think:

“…the different windows of time-restricted eating was determined on the basis of just two days of dietary intake.” Yikes. That, and it sounds like they didn’t control for any of the possible confounding variables such as nutrient intake, demographics, weight, stress, or basically any other risk factors or possible explanations. Its entirely possible that once they actually control for this stuff, the correlation could shrink to almost nothing or even reverse when we see that people who tried this diet were just baseline higher risk than who didn’t.

It’s just sugar with a teensy bit of the natural brown color from unrefined molasses left in it. I don’t find your observation that it takes 5 or 10 times as much of it to sweeten something to be true for me whatsoever, it’s almost exactly the same, and leaves me wondering if perhaps you also find that today’s low-flow toilets need to be flushed dozens of times to work, or that you turn on modern showers and just a tiny trickle comes out :)

Andrew Tate himself is absolutely a problem, that doesn’t preclude there from also being other, related, broader, problems. Usually, when you see an argument in the form of “X thing (small, defined, addressable) isn’t the problem, Y thing (large, nebulous, intractable) is the problem!” Then what is happening is someone is re-framing the debate from a cognizable issue to an unsolvable issue, to defuse any actual action. It’s a great tactic!

Whew boy, the boogaloo and the kraken would like a word lads

It got “Slammed”

Wow I wish there was some penalty for lawyers who deliberately made statements with this much bad faith. First off it’s State vs. Federal, so fuck off. Then we’re talking breaking into a building to prevent Congress from doing it’s job, while assaulting federal law enforcement, versus non-violent document, election, and conspiracy charges, so fuck off again. And by far most important, we’re talking about know-nothing foot soldiers who committed blatant federal felonies and had nothing to bargain with, vs Sidney the Goddamn Kraken Powell who must have hard evidence by the boatload that she forked over to score this deal, and who can directly testify about Trump’s words and actions and meetings she was in. There’s no comparison here, no equivalence, and these J6 defense lawyers trying to gin one up is just offensive.

I don’t see why they’d need to occupy anything. Occupation would imply that you wanted to control that area and those people. I think Israel knows occupation would never work and wouldn’t try it. They’ve preferred to wall-off people in enclaves, slowly squeeze all life out of those regions, and when the people they have cornered inevitably violently lash out against their own slow-motion genocide, it’s time to flatten the area with bombs again. Israel calls it “mowing the grass” and I don’t think a massive occupation fits with that strategy. I think they want to break the region, scatter the people, and leave it to rot, not occupy and be forced to manage it into the future indefinitely.

Legally speaking, you pretty much consent to being recorded when you step outside your own private space as far as I know.

I think maybe the terms used are different, but if the bar is a business owned by a private person or company, and is allowed to say who can be in there or not, set dress code, hours, rules about outside food etc, that’s what would be considered a place of business in the US, and those aren’t publicly-owned or considered a public space as far as the rights of those people in that space. I get that “pub” literally means “public” but they aren’t owned by some government entity, you don’t have a “right” to free access to them, and the rules about what can and can’t take place there are set by the private owners.

I wonder about that, because how many things are already recording our activity in some way when we’re out in public? And what would “knowing that you’re being recorded” consist of? Like if there’s a security camera on the corner of a building filming the sidewalk, and I don’t see it, is my privacy violated? If someone posts a sign that says “cameras in use” is that enough? It’s just an interesting question because obviously there are a huge variety of recording devices everywhere these days in public and as far as I know there’s really not much in the way of laws dictating how or whether the device owner needs to warn people who may wander into it’s range in public.

Yes, if you are certain that complying with discovery is going to expose more crimes and get you and your seditious buddies in more hot water, a good soldier like Giuliani will take the L of a default judgement, simply because he’s more afraid of what his “friends” will do to him than what the justice system will do to him.

It’s not easy to lose a case by default for failing to comply with discovery. You have to really work hard for the court to basically say “your conduct is so bad that you’ve forfeited your right to continue making a defense”. But due process is still a process, and if you straight up refuse to fulfill your end of the process, and turn down the many chances to comply with discovery that the judge will give you, then this happens. Alex Jones went down for the same thing in his defamation case. These turds all think they can just buck every system or break any norm that suits them, which is why they always go down for the dumbest simplest shit in these cases like perjury, discovery, and witness tampering.