The laws are designed to allow murdering the poor. That doesn’t make it “not murder”. When you deny live-saving treatment out of profit considerations, that is both premeditated and killing out of greed. There’s two murder criteria right there.

If the laws are designed for the elite, it is very stupid to argue morality based on what’s “lawful” and what is illegal.

Stupid title. LLM are less AI than a trivial control loop

because of the ~~(mis?)~~use of the word “contradictory”,

I used that only in my second comment, after the first person got flustered :) Go up two more in the comment chain and you’ll see my original comment. Although, I stand by the second comment as well - the article is contradicting itself.

If I say

The square root of -1 is i […] The square root of -1 is not defined. […]

Only to THEN go on to explain what imaginary numbers are, then I have still contradicted myself :)

You are judging a field specialist(s) on basically their communication skills.

“Carly Cassella is a Senior Journalist at ScienceAlert”

Or am I?

Also, it’s not my fault that people got all flustered about me simply pointing out that poor phrasing with “do they even proofread?”

Edit: goat -> got

Let me break it down so you see the point I was making - in case the bold wasn’t enough:

Using high-resolution scanners, researchers at the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford have shown microscopic, structural abnormalities in the brainstems of those recovering from COVID-19. Signs of brain inflammation were present up to 18 months after first contracting the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Here, they refer to people recovering from COVID-19, thus clearly indicate that patients are alive.

[…] In living brains of those with long COVID, however, conventional MRI studies have shown no structural abnormalities in the brainstem.

This paragraph immediately follows one that talks about autopsy(!) results, and here, they start a sentence with “in living brains […], however”, setting the sentence up as a contradiction to the previous one, with an emphasis on the word living in the article itself.

Here’s an example how the sentence should be written to not seemingly cause a contradiction / misdirect the reader:

However, previous studies conducted with conventional MRI had shown no structural abnormalities in the brainstem in living brains.

They put emphasis on the change in observation from autopsy to living brains, linking this paragraph more strongly to the preceeding one, when they should have put emphasis on the conventional studies, building the context for the subsequent paragraph.

yes, I can guess that explanation when trying to figure out the seeming contradiction. I don’t read scientific articles to end up guessing because the author can’t string together a well structured text. :)

I have to choose what to spend my time on. If an article contradicts itself that obviously after I spent 2-5 minutes reading, I’ll go look for more intelligent texts.

Using high-resolution scanners, researchers at the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford have shown microscopic, structural abnormalities in the brainstems of those recovering from COVID-19.

Signs of brain inflammation were present up to 18 months after first contracting the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

[…]

In living brains of those with long COVID, however, conventional MRI studies have shown no structural abnormalities in the brainstem.

Do these people not proof-read their own articles?

and i wondered: if women in the past were hunting and thus using their skill like men do and yada yada, not gender roles like today and stuff, does that mean that there was no patriarchy back then?

But you asked exactly that - and I gave you examples of women that “were hunting and thus using their skill” and there was no patriarchy in some of those systems - even into the present.

Also - let’s be real - most men nowadays who talk about “men hunting” are fat slobs who couldn’t hunt a chicken with a limp ;)

There are tribal people that live in matriarchy. If that answers your question. Also, the amazons are not just a myth.

I think you went off on a tangent. This is not what I was complaining about. Also, I do not have a problem with “gender stuff” - I just have a problem with a lack of objectivity.

The theory proposes that hunting was a major driver of human evolution and that men carried this activity out to the exclusion of women. It holds that human ancestors had a division of labor, rooted in biological differences between males and females, in which males evolved to hunt and provide and females tended to children and domestic duties. It assumes that males are physically superior to females and that pregnancy and child-rearing reduce or eliminate a female’s ability to hunt.

Oh boy, what a load of bullshit to start an article that may very well have a solid point. I lost all interest in reading at this paragraph.

“It holds” - as if there was only one theory - and everyone who believes that men were mostly hunters and women mostly gatherers would be guilty of the assumptions mentioned thereafter.

I, for one, only ever heard that due to men mostly hunting (because women were busy with children), men evolved to have a better perception of moving images e.g. small movements of prey in hiding, and women evolved to have a better perception of details of inanimate objects (e.g. finding things to forage). And that explanation - while not necessarily correct - made sense, and is in no way the sexist bullshit that the article insinuates.

The author of that article is not doing feminism a favor by basically alleging “all who believe men evolved to hunt and women to gather are chauvinists”.

I guess I should have clarified in my original comment that I was exaggerating - obviously, C++ doesn’t get as bad as python, not even into the same ballpark.

My emphasis was on “don’t use C++ like you would python” because that’s not good advice imo.

Not quite, but smart pointers in the wrong location can be quite wasteful in terms of CPU cycles.

So, basically, use it like you would use Python.

That’s a great way to get performance as shitty as python’s.

I didn’t realize that capitalism and democracy are mutually exclusive until I grew out of my mid 20s…

Oh that war criminal monster Netanyahu was never willing to negotiate in good faith. He really is doing a genocide to distract from his own criminal proceedings. Once, in my younger days, I thought democracy had overcome absolutism. Now, I just think the ways to power have changed

Let me get this right… Hamas is bad, so those cunts assassinate moderate party representatives that would be an alternative to Hamas?

For the purpose of protecting important data, the distinction really doesn’t matter. And the good old xkcd comic has a point - for many people, all relevant data is in the user’s accessible storage area anyways. Hence me running almost all internet applications and steam in a jail.

Okay, fair point, let me rephrase: if someone knows what kernel (admin) level execution means, and installs a game that requires this on a computer where they keep important data, they are a dumbass mtherfcker :) Generally speaking though: most people shouldn’t be allowed to use technology - humans are unbelievably stupid for the most part.