Skimmed some of the studies as well. A few of the studies reported an estmated incidence rate of 4 per 1 million. And that's just incidence rate. Meanwhile the mortality rate of covid that year was 1850 per million cases. Some of the names themselves are dead giveaways.
One of the other mentioned 7 kids who had complications from the vaccine. In the conclusion, it basically says "we gave them advil and they were good."
It's just more fear mongering and gish gallop.
Agree 100%. Especially when you're doing more complicated queries, working with ORM adds so much complexity and obfuscation. In my experience, if you're doing much of anything outside CRUD, they add more work than they save.
I also tend to doubt their performance claims. Especially when you can easily end up mapping much more data when using a ORM than you need to.
I think ORMs are a great example of people thinking absolutely everything needs to be object oriented. OO is great for a lot of things and I love using it, but there are also places where it creates more problems than it solves.
They throw out all nuance and have absolutely no empathy or consideration that others need to live differently than them. Or hell, need to live differently than them in order to support their own lifestyle. I swear 90% of them have never lived outside the city they were born in.
But it's not unethical to eat meat in itself, it's because of the needing to kill an animal. The taste/shape/flavor of meat isn't the unethical part right?
That'd be like saying it's unethical to take free gifts because stealing is wrong.
I don't think this is even an unpopular opinion anymore. Well, at least as long as you're not asking scrum masters.
Well, definitely fits the prompt. Can I ask a follow up question? Why do you think it's unethical to eat meat?
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the concept in general. Factory farms are hell holes. But I'm having trouble connecting your two points. But to me, the ethical issues with eating meat come down to the suffering the animal endured. If it's a meat substitute, or eventually lab grown meat, that suffering doesn't exist. So the ethical issues don't apply.
Yea, if only there were real world applications for AI. Like image/video generation and editing, text generation including code, audio processing and generation, object recognition and image classification, fraud detection, medical diagnosis, predictions in general, protein folding, or even just general data analysis. Then it might actually take off.
OpenGPT is just an LLM but that's only one small facet of AI. When people talk about AI and only mean LLMs or even one specific guy/company, it's a clear sign they don't know any more about AI than that one Vox article they read 2 months ago.
The whole "we don't know how they work" thing is a bit overblown. We have all the formulas, we know exactly how the math and code works. You can go and look at the weights for every node, you're just not going to derive any meaning or necessarily explain why one number works better than another.
Putting in even a single stop at a rural town could easily add 30 minutes each way to the route. Probably more, getting from a hub city to these rural towns is a good amount of driving with not much of anything between. A bus that stops at a rural 500 person town once every hour or so isn't moving enough people to be more efficient than cars. Now you want to do that for every town surrounding a hub city? The economy of scale simply doesn't exist for rural areas. Even suburbs stretch that a bit.
Here's the best graphic I've seen for putting the numbers in context: https://xkcd.com/1732/
It's slightly out of date so we're actually at roughly +2 degrees C.
Basically, from year 0 CE to 1000 CE there was basically no change in average temperature. Then from 1000 CE to 1900 CE temperature actually went down about .5 degrees. Since then, we've gone up 2.5 degrees. So the past two thousand years temperature changed a total of .5 degrees down. We've increased about 5 times that in the past 100 years.
"By not addressing their points from a charitable perspective, you're playing right into the astroturfer's hands."
That's the exact opposite of how this works. The GOP astroturfers want the conversation to be about "addressing concerns of these poor mothers, whose innocent children are being subjected to XYZ" meanwhile they get to keep fear mongering and raising money. You can tell these people that book banning isn't a good idea for thousands of reasons but that'd be meaningless. They don't care about book banning in the first place. They care about raising money and fear mongering as a way to do so.
Oh, I'm reducing you because you are wrong or are arguing in bad faith. Both good reasons to hit the down arrow.
"I may be butting into a topic I don't understand. I don't know much about these Moms for Liberty except that I thing I've heard that they support trump." I mean, it doesn't take that much effort to go to wikipedia, but here, I've even done it for you:
Mom's for Liberty is so much worse than what you're implying here. They're not some innocent gathering of parents who don't want certain things taught in schools. They're an astroturf, highly GOP connected, right wing campaign that has supported many things like anti-vax propaganda, book bans, anti-LGBT legislature, and the rest of the "normal" GOP stuff. They have an extensive history of getting caught calling for violence against those they disagree with. They have 3 separate sections on Wikipedia about the different people they have been caught threatening with violence.
Yep, technology sure doesn't start out expensive then get cheaper later. If only that were the case.
Lol, "People who disagree with me simply aren’t aware that there are EVs that are not BEVs." Oh, no, we can read. We just think you're wrong.
Let me throw out a guess, you think it'll be the hydrogen FCEV's that will take over? Those can be pretty expensive right now though. Do you think the technology will improve and get cheaper over time by any chance?
https://www.caranddriver.com/chevrolet/bolt-euv
So you just have a hydrogen full cell manufacturer's name as your username and post extensively in https://kbin.social/m/Hydrogen for fun or do you think you maybe have a conflict of interest here and are being disingenuous?
And there are 5 other cars below $40k. Just because 1 car is expensive doesn't mean others are.
There's plenty of BEVs that are competitively priced to any other new car: https://www.caranddriver.com/features/g32463239/new-ev-models-us/
They might not be the car you choose to take on a road trip, but most days, I only need to drive less than 20 miles anyway.