It’s not about stupid or smart. It’s a tool, not a person. If you don’t get the same results that other people get with the same tool, then what could possibly be the problem other than how the person is using the tool?

No, it’s not. It doesn’t have intention. It’s literally just a tool. If you don’t get the results you expect with a tool when other people do get those results, then the problem isn’t the tool.

The symptoms you describe are caused by bad prompting. If an AI is providing over-complicated solutions, 9 times out of 10 it’s because you didn’t constrain your problem enough. If it’s referencing tools that don’t exist, then you either haven’t specified which tools are acceptable or you haven’t provided the context required for it to find the tools. You may also be wanting too much out of AI. You can’t expect it to do everything for you. You still have to do almost all the thinking and engineering if you want a quality project - the AI is just there to write the code. Sure, you can use an AI to help you learn how to be a better engineer, but AIs typically don’t make good high-level decisions. Treat AI like an intern, not like a principal engineer.

Not sure how this is relevant. They’re discussing theism, not religion.

No. You’re correct. You would get less money back on your taxes if your wife’s income went up. However, the amount your taxes go up is less than the increase to your wife’s income, so you still end up ahead as a couple. You get the largest individual tax breaks when you have a breadwinner, but the total financial incentive (after tax returns) is for both partners to make as much money as possible.

That said, finances are very emotionally charged and how people should approach their finances depends on how they think about this stuff. That’s why snowball debt strategies work - not because they are optimal financially, but because they play into the psychology of a human paying off debt. With that in mind, I suppose you could still feel incentivized to have a large difference in incomes because of the tax breaks - it just isn’t financially optimal if there is a free opportunity for the lower earner to bring in more money.

Married couples get the same tax benefits regardless. A raise for the lower earner always means more money for the family, so no, it doesn’t incentivize having a breadwinner over having equal pay.

I don’t think we can say that about consciousness for sure, but I agree with your broader point that it doesn’t have self-awareness or a sense of horror at its predicament.

This could actually host a very interesting rudimentary form of consciousness that is theorized by some theories of consciousness, especially idealist models like panpsychism or analytic idealism (though I do admit that analytic idealism would phrase it in terms of having a mental state instead of being conscious).

They literally asked you to explain yourself after you made some vague comments. All this name calling and complaining about hurt feelings is likely just projecting on your part.

I think it’s more like 303/2800 chance.

There are 97 leap days every 400 years, then the calendar repeats. So you have 303/400 chance of not having a leap year, and in those years, you get a 1/7 chance of having this calendar. Thus 303/2800.

I am being real. Sometimes the side effects are bad. If they are, then don’t take the drug. This isn’t as complicated as you are making it. Like doctors might be paid off to push a drug, but if they’re prescribing generics, then that’s probably not the case. Just have to use common sense when listening to doctors . You can’t take everything they say at face value, but that doesn’t mean doctors are useless.

Repeating the same claim again and again doesn’t count as an argument. I do software engineering for a living. I have been paid for discovering security vulnerabilities. I know more about this than you do. I’ve been trying to explain it to you, but you won’t listen and choose to be rude instead.

I personally didn’t experience any, but I know others that have. I’m just trying to be responsible when advocating for people being open minded about mental health treatment. Would you rather that I lie and say there are no side effects?

I don’t trust doctors either, but they do know more about medicine and health than most people on earth, so they can still be a useful resource.

It’s different for everyone. You shouldn’t be afraid to try pharmaceuticals, but also know they may not work and may have side effects. Personally, I found SSRI’s to work for my depression and I know other people that they didn’t help. Also, my prescription is $1 for a month supply, so not necessarily expensive either - it depends on the drug and where you live. You should talk to a doctor to be sure.

First, I can, but since you don’t want me to, I won’t. Second, it’s not a strawman, it’s your own analogy and it doesn’t work because it’s based on a false assumption. Using a found key to enter a house unauthorized is breaking in the same way that using a found password to enter an account unauthorized is hacking. The analogy works against your case, not for it.

Now stop distracting from the administration in the divided states of middle northern america protecting child rapists including their head of state.

This is the wildest accusation. I’m not the one deconstructing narratives around the emails to put my own spin on them. I’m the one using established terminology to properly understand the context of the story. You on the other hand, are claiming that Epstein’s emails weren’t hacked, which makes it conveniently easy to dismiss the story as spreading misinformation. I don’t believe this is your intention, but you should be honest, if anyone is distracting from anything here, it’s you. If that’s not what you are doing, then it’s not what I am doing either.

It sounds like you know you are wrong and just want to score a cheap point against me. I didn’t say anything rude or mean to you and have given you absolutely no reason to accuse me of that. Just relax. We’re all friends here.

Another version of the joke: “How can American cheese exist if America doesn’t have any culture?”

The United States, Canada, France, Germany, Austria, New Zealand, Spain, South Africa, and probably many more.

Other countries might call it something else, like the UK calls it burglary, but it pretty much always falls under the same law as breaking into a house using more forceful means on entry.

Same as losing your house keys and having someone use them to enter your house is unauthorized entry and violation of a set of laws, but it is NOT breaking into a house.

It IS breaking into a house. The law you are violating in this scenario is called breaking and entering.

Yes, sorry. I suppose I could have been more precise from the get-go. That’s what I get for using social media at work. I understand the desire to see the data broken down further, but at the same time, it does make sense to me to keep pet cats and feral cats lumped together in the context of analyzing bird deaths associated with humans. I think we’re in complete agreement with that sorted out.

I’m not the one twisting language here.

Let’s try not to take things personally here. I’m not twisting words, and I’m not claiming that you are either. I’m pretty confident the equivocation is an honest mistake.

We don’t disagree on the definition of a domesticated species here. We don’t disagree about whether cats are domesticated or not. The original comment by gmtom said, “graph would be better if feral cats were separated from pet cats. As the vast majority of predation comes from those feral cats.” Note that the categories we are discussing here are feral cats and pet cats, not feral cats and domestic cats.

You respond by saying, “The reason they are the same group is that feral cats result from domestic cats, if there were not domestic cats, we would not have feral cats. They are not wild, native cats.” The categories here have changed to feral cats and domestic cats when the original comment was about feral cats and pet cats.

You can conclude from this line of reasoning that separating the graph into the categories of feral cats and domesticated cats is inappropriate, but you cannot use this line of reasoning to conclude that it is inappropriate to separate the graph into the categories of feral cats and pet cats.

Using this argument to suggest that it is inappropriate to separate the graph into the categories of feral cats and pet cats is to equivocate two distinct usages of the term domestic. One usage means “a member of a domesticated species” and the other usage means “pet” or something like “non-feral domesticated.” These are clearly distinct usages. In one case, the categories overlap, while they are mutually exclusive in the other.

Feel free to hit me with sources on this. If they aren’t feral they are wild.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_cat

I’ve got another resource on domestication to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication_of_the_cat

We don’t disagree on the facts here, so no number of sources could resolve this discussion one way or another.

That’s not true. Cats domesticated themselves.

domesticated wild cats into pets

That’s not what domestication means.

If your point is that all feral cats are members of a domesticated species, then you are correct only by definition. If your point is that all feral cats come from pet cats, then you are factually incorrect.