I agree with the OOP, it should be lit… on fire
Edit: damn you autocorrect
I agree with the OOP, it should be lit… on fire
Edit: damn you autocorrect
Anyone who icks over their partner having a little bit of harmless, dumb fun doesn’t deserve their partner IMO
Whelp, we’re one step ever closer to terminators. Just gotta let Boston Dynamics cook now
Honestly, if you replaced those olives with pepper slices, and that “Queso” with something that looked slightly less artificial than the hotdog its covering, that might not be so bad.
Tell you what, your avatar pic is awfully appropriate right now
Sorry to derail, but what a coincidence, I think I might have that very same cross-body bag
It always sucks to know you paid more than the seller did - but that just means Oxfam undervalued the book.
Having worked in one, charity shops tend to have a habit of either really undervaluing or overvaluing their donated goods - cause the people who actually set the prices mostly just guess based on looks and nothing more. Only if an item looks expensive will they do any research, and even then never really enough.
Exactly. The big problem with LLMs is that they’re so good at mimicking understanding that people forget that they don’t actually have understanding of anything beyond language itself.
The thing they excel at, and should be used for, is exactly what you say - a natural language interface between humans and software.
Like in your example, an LLM doesn’t know what a cat is, but it knows what words describe a cat based on training data - and for a search engine, that’s all you need.
I was a bit of a picky eater when I was younger, but I’ve become much, much less so over the years - one of the few things I’ve never come around on is olives. The taste and texture combination just don’t work for me
While it certainly is a bit of a captain obvious moment that exposure to far-right echo chambers helped radicalise vulnerable people into the far-right, but I can see the merit in having empirical evidence supporting what we see (as OP said) - it is a lot easier to dismiss an andecdote than statistical evidence
I would definitely like to have duck more often. I only rarely get it for myself as a treat but god damn is it the best bird going.
That may be their objective, but they’ve clearly failed and should be rewritten to reflect reality, evidenced by the fact that half of scientific journals use Aluminum.
Once again - American journals.
You’re downright ignorant to suggest that because one country refuses to follow an internationally agreed upon naming scheme it should be rewritten to suit you. That’s the kind of logic that should come from a little kid, not a country.
Of course if you’d like to stick entirely with the academic prescriptions, you’re free to not use “email” in French, singular they in English, AI instead of KI in Norwegian […]
I don’t have enough context about all the examples you list to make an informed opinion of them, but I can certainly take a crack at a couple…
singular they in English
Singular they was historically discouraged in academic writing as it was seen as informal, but doesn’t mean it was never acknowledged.
It has been used, just not widely - though with an academic swing towards gender-neutral language, it is seen as acceptable by most academic style guides…
However, in the scientific world you’re not really supposed to refer to yourself personally in papers in the first place, so it’s about as accepted as any other pronoun.
AI instead of KI in Norwegian
That’s not just a Norwegian thing, it’s a difference due to language.
AI is not an internationally standardised terminology, so of course different languages with different component words and/or grammar are going to end up with different acronyms.
For example, the Germans and Dutch also refer to it as KI (though in Dutch AI is also acceptable), and in Spain and France IA is the standard - that doesn’t mean that academics wouldn’t just agree on a term when working internationally.
As said before, I don’t know enough about the other examples to make informed discussion of them, but the examples I do have context for are do not fall in the same category as America outright refusing to use internationally agreed upon terminology.
In any case, I don’t think you’re going to be convinced by any of the words I’m saying, nor do I think I’ll be convinced by anything you could say, so I’m going to leave this here before I throw too much time into an endless back and forth.
Ah of course, the heavily American-centric forum is obviously the perfect way to prove the entirely American misspelling is the correct one /s
You can spell or pronounce Aluminium however you like, but there is only one internationally recognised spelling, and it’s not “Aluminum”
Those “archaic rules” exist to standardise international science communication, not to make America feel better about its inability to standardise to save its life.
Oh, really?
The official IUPAC spelling is “Aluminium” - notice how there are two "I"s in there.
Since IUPAC is quite literally the international authority on chemical terminology, I’d suggest their spelling is the correct one.
If you want to spell it wrong, you do you, but don’t act like it’s the correct way to spell it.
Rock. Stick will rot quickly, but the rock will stick around as long as I don’t lose it
Exactly. People weren’t so much amazed by the fact something wouldn’t move until you moved it, they were much more amazed by mathematical proof that in the vacuum of space objects will just keep moving however you pushed them - it’s an alien idea when all you’ve ever experienced is the opposite on Earth.
Was about to say - either that dog is AI generated, or OP has done an awful job taking the picture
And yet they’ll be scratching their heads trying to figure out why more people are returning to piracy.
Went to check - had personalised Ads off on every account I have already, so I guess I won’t be seeing what Google’s got on me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Yup. Autocorrect strikes again