I think they’re implying this mostly hit Hezbollah members, not than none of the victims were innocent.

Based on… what exactly?

The clear implication is that “number of Hezbollah member > victims = no innocent victims.”

And then you instantly jump into defending genocide. Holy fucking shit I honestly can’t communicate with words how disgustingly pathetic I find that.

No, I’m not gonna engage with your whataboutism and start arguing with you about how “Hezbollah deserved this absolutely pathetic terrorist attack.”

“Brought it on himself brought it on himself”

You fuckers still haven’t realised that Hammurabi’s law makes the whole world blind, huh? That was almost 4000 years ago, ffs. Read a book, preferably a modern one and not some tome of propaganda from thousands of years ago.

You’re literally defending the death of a 9-year old girl. You have to be sick in the fucking head to do that. Honestly.

You’re genuinely pathetic enough to try and imply that none of the victims are innocent?

I loathe “people” like you.

Hey @oberstoffensichtlich@feddit.org, you were saying that “these were extremely surgical strikes, people in the vicinity weren’t harmed”?

Thousands of people injured, all guilty of something ofc, because Israel would never do an attack which might harm innocents. Right? /S

Dude.

As a third-party to this conversation, I have to say that the dude writing “There is often a gap between common-use language, and the academic function of words (see “racism”). This is why I emphasized the relation of the definitions I provided to the fields of anthropology and sociology, as well as why I stated it is a use almost exclusively found, in my experiences, in academia.” seems a tad more credible than the one writing “I’m not superior just because I used a dictionary to quash the logical fallacy of your call to authority.”

I seriously think you just missed the nuance he was trying to emphasise, and you started mansplaining something he already implicitly had agreed on. Now you’re going for these rather immature “logical fallacy” arguments. Just a tip for that, btw, to up your game in that aspect. Naming fallacies to implicate that the other person is wrong is actually something called “the fallacy fallacy”, ie "because their logic contains a fallacy, the conclusion must be false. That in itself is a fallacy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

So yeah. You’re not wrong, but you’re also not right in correcting him in any way, and he’s not wrong to say that he is right.

I do believe he’s an English teacher. Just use your imagination a bit and think of how many of the things your English teacher told you didn’t seem to make sense, but when you actually dug into the material, you got an “aaa this is what he meant” - moment.

Well, there’s also a connection between Prometheus and Lucifer.

Prometheus brought fire. “Lucifer” means “light-bearer”.

Forethinkers are usually punished.

One of the mods is an actual Russian troll. Davel@lemmy.ml

Pro-Russian mod who keeps pretending they’re not.

“If those kids could read…” meme would be fitting lol

“Low technology.”

I think of “low tech” as something that you could with some materials and knowledge do yourself out of a garage.

I would not take an improvised vaccine made in someone’s garage. Not until we were in real fucked up post-apocalyptic scenarios.

It’s a broad generalization

Yes, it is. And imagine doing that for any other group, dividing then into two very opposing stereotypes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Most drug dealers are literally just regular people. Nothing to it.

How does it feel like, seeing only black and white?

You cannot do that with an LLM.

If I want to go and read a Harry Potter book, I presumably have to pay someone something (excluding library services because those are services provided for actual people, not AI’s)?

This LLM clearly has read Harry Potter and Chamber of Secrets, and is merely refusing to display the data it already has on it. “Data” in this case meaning the work, the book.

I’m not for current copyright laws, but I find defending these hypocritical companies despicable. I’m sure you’re able to imagine that if it suited OpenAI, they might argue the exact opposite of what they’re arguing. Companies don’t really argue things in good faith, rather always arguing for the thing that will be the most profitable for them, no matter the veracity.

OpenAI is arguing “we’re not using copyrighted works in a way which would require us to pay anything, the machine is merely extrapolating patterns”.

But then it does go on to quote materials verbatim, which shows it’s not “just” ‘extracting patterns’.

If I were to put up a service called “quote a book” or something, and it just had a non-AI bot which would — when given the book and pages — quote copyrighted works, would that be okay for me to make money on, without paying anyone I’m quoting? Even if they started to use my service to literally copy entire books?

Why are you defending massive corporations who could just pay up? Isn’t the whole “corporations putting profits over anything” thing a bit… seen already?

Well, they can surrender.

Not all of them all the time, but a lot of them are smart enough to do something “dumb” like drive to a Ukrainian village to ask for directions and “get taken as pows”.

So yeah, yes and no, as the answer to your question.

any normal person would consider this steam. This isn’t a chemistry or physics class.

Just because you didn’t pay attention in physics in basic education doesn’t mean no-one did.

When is the last time you heard someone refer to someone’s vape productions as “steam” in real life? “Goddamn vapers steaming all over”?

Vapour and steam are different, because you don’t need 100c for water vapour. Ever heard of clouds? Mist? Fog? None of those are steam, none of those are 100 degrees Celsius, but they are all water vapour.

That’s what vaporisers produce.

https://www.reddit.com/r/chemistry/s/lNzhmtSLVW

Ah, so you don’t understand the misunderstanding, or you’re purposefully using an illfitting word.

Vaporisers produce vapour.

VAPOUR:

Dictionary

Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more

noun

a substance diffused or suspended in the air, especially one normally liquid or solid.

"dense clouds of smoke and toxic vapour

Water vapor is the visible part of steam, and for the purposes of this discussion, we’re talking about boiling liquids

There’s no visible part of steam, despite colloquially people sometimes using language in a way that might make you think there is.

So why would you insist on using the wrong word after being corrected? (That’s a rhetoric question, because I already know the answer.)

Thanks.

But again, that’s mostly about the flavourings, and the flavourings found specifically in US markets. So that’s more like “the US regulatory framework needs work” and less “vaping is dangerous”.

Taking a hit from a vape that has no flavourings or nicotine is essentially exactly the same as taking a breath on a dancefloor in a club when the fog-machine is blowing clouds. Literally the same process, just nearer your mouth and smaller.

That article even says

*“While there’s little research on the side effects of vaping CBD, some general side effects — which tend to be mild — of CBD use include: irritability, fatigue, nausea and diarrhea.”

And that’s pretty ridiculous.

Not readable from EU unless I decide my privacy and data don’t matter at all, which I won’t be doing.

Ugh, that’s no good! It doesn’t say what you think it does. It shows that they are safe, not that they are harmful.

For this study the team included 30 youths aged between 21 and 30 years between 2015 and 2017. They did not have a history of traditional smoking or e-cigarettes.

^ Small sampling.

The participants were divided into two groups – one of the groups was a control group while the other was asked to use e-cigarettes at least twice a day taking 20 puffs during an hour at one time. To measure the puff count, the refills given to the users had LED screens with a puff counter. The e-cigarette refills used contained 50% propylene glycol (PG) and 50% vegetable glycerine (VG) and no nicotine or flavours. The study duration was for one month.

For all the participants, a bronchoscopy was performed at the start of the study and again five weeks after. The lung tissues, bronchi and the lung health were recorded at these sessions. The team wrote, “Inflammatory cell counts and cytokines were determined in bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluids. Genome-wide expression, microRNA, and mRNA were determined from bronchial epithelial cells.”

Results revealed that there was no significant difference in levels of inflammatory cells among the e-cigarette users and the control group.

No difference in between the control group and the vapers?

So I don’t know if you’ve mistakenly been sharing that, but it supports the opposite of what I gather is your view on the matter. I know it might not seem like that if you only read the headline, but I tend to actually read the articles and studies I link myself. You know, to avoid awkward things like this.

Steam is the hot gas that is produced when water is boiled. It’s also completely see through, ie, invisible.

That is not what the vapes produce. It’s a water vapor. That’s why they’re called “vaporisers” and not “steamers”.

Ah, finally, there’s actual studies showing actual dangers, and not just manufactured bullshit from the cases where bad regulation lead to people vaping acetate E? Can you please link me those studies so I can use link them forwards?

“Converted what I said into the truth”

Now I’m not against the point you’re making in any way, I think the bots are hardcore yes men.

Buut… I have a 1060 and I got it around when No Man’s Sky came out, and I did try it on my 4k LED TV. It did run, but it also stuttered quite a bit.

Now I’m currently thinking of updating my card, as I’ve updated the rest of the PC last year. A 3070 is basically what I’m considering, unless I can find a nice 4000 series with good VRAM.

My point here being that this isn’t the best example you could have given, as I’ve basically had that conversation several times in real life, exactly like that, as “it runs” is somewhat subjective.

LLM’s obviously have trouble with subjective things, as we humans do too.

But again, I agree with the point you’re trying to make. You can get these bots to say anything. It amused me that the blocks are much more easily circumvented just by telling them to ignore something or by talking hypothetically. Idk but at least very strong text based erotica was easy to get out of them last year, which I think should not have been the case, probably.