Look up what Alfred Nobel is famous for inventing and the whole bombing fixation starts to make more sense.

I guess reading comprehension is that bad. Here was the rest of the comment:

The justification for attacking them is that they need to be stopped before they cross the line.

I’m not saying I agree with this line of reasoning, but the clear idea is that Iran doesn’t currently have nuclear weapons.

god forbid a woman have a grasp on her own sexuality

I don’t think people have an issue with her having her own sexuality.

I think people have finally woken up about the sickening exploitation in the entertainment industry and the way women are sexualized and pressured by major labels then thrown away when they aren’t “sexy” anymore, absolutely destroying their mental health and sense of self worth as going far back as Marilyn Monroe, Judy Garland, Amy Winehouse, Amanda Bynes, Brittany Spears, etc.

If you’re talking OpenEvolve you have to specific put in the tests and expected values for each function for this approach to work.

That’s a conversation you might want to have with the original commenter.

If you follow up the comment chain I was trying to help clarify their comment for the thread because I think OP is criticizing what Russia said and not Reuters as a source, yet the latter is being focused on in this thread.

That’s fair to be confused! Every “side” is telling you to read their sources and dismiss everyone else’s but the list changes depending on who you talk to.

I would say to start, probably don’t arbitrarily dismiss sources. I dont think thats worthwhile advice not to hear people out.

If a lot of people are trying to keep you from looking at something, I would say it’s probably important to go get the real story for yourself instead of vibing it out from a billion different opinions.

Instead, move closer to the source. In that case, like in this Reuters article, Reuters can be removed from the story.

We could go direct to the transcription of Medinsky’s full statement.

Try to read what others are saying and really try to hear them for what they’re actually meaning to say.

Did you click on the Reuters article you’re talking about?

Russia says Ukraine postpones prisoner exchange, accepting bodies

Ukraine has unexpectedly postponed exchanging prisoners of war and accepting the bodies of killed soldiers for an indefinite period, Kremlin aide Vladimir Medinsky said on Saturday.

It’s the Kremlin aide that they’re calling the propaganda.

Reuters just quoted the Kremlin.

That is outrageous! It’s unfair!

I don’t know if it’s necessary a bad thing. Presumably these people were enjoying the book until they read this.

How can we presume that?

All we know is that these people were promised a novel written as art by humans and were baited and switched into getting an algorithm.

It’s kind of like the invention of the printing press. Sure, the content may not be artistically crafted any more, and there may be waaaay more slop. But I bet we will end up getting way more high quality content too.

If we’re still in the betting process for whether AI might one day potentially be high quality then it sounds like you understand that today it’s not a viable product to write novels with.

I get what you’re doing but they can just change pennames

Lmao, k

Software As A Surprise

Why do you think we call it “crackin”

If the question is things “only” old people say, you have to exclude phrases old people say that were repopularized through media.

“Heavy” (meaning important, grave)

For example this is a really quotable line from Back to the Future, so kids would pick it up.

I’m literally confused as fuck right now. Help explain this in a different way.

I provided evidence for a thing I believe in. You’re accusing me of refusing to believe the thing I showed evidence for?

Then why did you claim I can’t see it?

I refuse to believe that which I’ve seen no evidence for.

So long as it is more convenient to sarcastically quip about how you’re right instead of explaining it, I will struggle to be convinced by your words.

Sorry, but you are suggesting that the best strategy possible to stop the genocide is to be nice to the person committing the genocide

No, I suggested we adopt the best strategy regardless of what it is.

You said that even if the best strategy possible is to be nice, you wouldn’t consider doing do.

Great, I’ll make sure to report you to the mods if your openly admitting to acting in bad faith.

Feel free to do that, if I’ve broken the rules they should remove my comment. I didnt realize this was getting so personal so I will take this as the end of the convo, even across the other threads, just letting you know so you don’t waste time replying to those.

It would only be a compliment if you were trying to capture the flaw in liberalism.

I was.

Again, I appreciate the compliment. Take care.

When my goal is to describe the flaws of liberalism succinctly and you say “You’ve captured the flaw in liberalism extremely succinctly.” I have a hard time taking that as an insult, ngl.