cmhe

I did read that. And how much of it was distributed, it doesn't say.

In every article on records about of food preparation, they never say how much of it is eaten and how much of it is thrown away.

I would necessitate that all or a large percentage of it needs to be eaten for the record to count.

Maybe you are scarcastic, but I think nobody should be afraid of their life by getting killed by random people.

They should be afraid of the people, but not of individuals with guns or money to hire contract killers.

Kirk's death was a public assassination. There are many easier for ways someone can kill an unsuspecting target. The way the killer escaped makes it likely they where professional or otherwise trained, not just crazy. The killer choose a difficult and public way to kill him, meaning it is more then just about killing Krik. It is clearly a message, question is what message and to whom.

The DMCA takedowns work like that, AFAIK.

Like if two people happens to draw the same exact map, then what? Who gets to sue who? First come first serve? Literally does not make sense.

In many cases intention matters. Two people can take the same picture and that would be fine, but if the intention was to copy someone's work, then this is bad.

Also, in this case often the person accused of copying someone, needs to proof that they didn't, which inverts the burden of proof. Copyright as it works right now, serves more the wealthy then the little men, as it is with so many laws under the current system.

Copyright itself needs to be reorganized fundamentally.

Would say that it is the same here as it elsewhere, we need a strong counter narrative and a charismatic person that is fronted by a leading party that manages to deliver that, while cutting through all the bullshit spewed by the demagoguery of the right. We need fighters, not 'civility' politics against people that are anti-democratic.

We need better social policies and actually mean them. Those were what people wanted and often still want when they are baited by the right.

Right wing mention actual social issues, but "resolve" them with xenophobic "solutions", while also fabricating issues out of thin air, like immigrant crime, etc. Which suddenly all other parties think they need to address as well.

I guess the question is who they were even talking to. Where they talking to the astronaut, or anyone reading their message. That would make a difference.

If I say: "When the sun rises..." and someone comes along to enlighten me about astronomy and how the sun doesn't rise, that would be mansplaining and not correcting. If they talk to someone else because my words inspirerd them to think about this, then it wouldn't.

Yeah, it is. The act of mansplaining isn't gender specific. It is about the attempt to raise someone's status above someone else by nitpicking what they said, with often obvious facts.

This isn't about you.

Also this kind of liberal argument of, 'The gestapo cannot catch me because I bought skates!' is stupid and tiring.

But how can they sell priority boarding then? Just think for one minute about the poor airline companies! /s

This link is about reasoning system, not reasoning. Reasoning involves actually understanding the knowledge, not just having it. Testing or validating where knowledge is contradictionary.

LLM doesn't understand the difference between hard and soft rules of the world. Everything is up to debate, everything is just text and words that can be ordered with some probabilities.

It cannot check if something is true, it just 'knows' that someone on the internet talked about something, sometimes with and often without or contradicting resolutions..

It is a gossip machine, that trys to 'reason' about whatever it has heard people say.