Eh, Putin’s in charge of both anyway, so there’s not much difference.

There is one way that “one man and one woman” wouldn’t be true, and that’s the trans community. Then again, I’m pretty sure the article isn’t thinking about that.

I just saw three comments in a row trying to correct each other while saying the same thing in different words.

…think to yourself “Is this something that insert racist/bigot who is incompetent would do?” If it is a yes, don’t post it.

I mean, they obviously would do it, or the headline is wrong. If they wouldn’t have done it, they wouldn’t have done it, but they apparently did.

But that’s just me being pedantic. I do agree with you that a lot of posts are just trying to dunk on Trump and his group chat for being stupid. Being stupid is not enough to be funny, and the headlines here should be comedic in some way.

You think these fuckers are giving us cake?

Oi! I’m a lazy programmer with no friends, and I will not take this slander!

Actually, if the onion ran info wars, it would tell people the site is satire. Which would be the first piece of correct information on the platform.

We don’t have a community called “quantum superposition of onion”, so this will have to do

I decided to look it up, just to be sure. Specifics vary based on where you are, but depicting anything too extreme is generally gonna be illegal. Even if it’s legal in the bedroom, it’s not necessarily legal in porn.

Heck, I’m British, and the age of consent is 16. It’s 18 in porn, though.

It’s also really efficient, setting up the entire relationship with just the word “step-bro”. Plus, it’s taboo enough for the characters to say “we shouldn’t”, but not SO taboo that the viewer thinks they actually shouldn’t.

I remember reading a while ago that, because you can’t have full incest in porn, the Game of Thrones porn parody (or, at least, one of them) was LESS explicit than the show.

And no. No we’re not. I doubt many places are.

My first thought was “because they’re getting hotter”, which didn’t seem like a Guardian article.

Surely, the energy cost to verify the translation would be the same as translating it? If you’re struggling that much, why are you translating it at all? I cannot trust your translation.

If you tell an LLM to generate reports, it will, regardless of the actual quality of the environment. It doesn’t know what’s secure and what isn’t. All you’ve shown it to do is convince the kinds of security analysts with a system so insecure as to have a LOT of good reports that their system is more secure than it is. Which is useless at best, detrimental at worst.

It’s useless for translation. It’s useless for security analysis. It’s useless for rhyming (I notice you didn’t mention that one). You’re trying so hard to prove how useful it is, and your failure demonstrates how useless it is.

You can’t condemn confident wrongness and defend LLMs. And you can’t defend the billionaire’s toxic Nazi plagiarism machine while questioning someone else’s morals. You can’t cherry-pick my argument and claim I’m the one fighting a strawman. …Well, not if you’re arguing in good faith.

If you know enough to verify a translation as accurate, or you have the tools to figure out an accurate translation through dictionaries or some such, then you know enough to do the translation yourself. If you don’t, then I cannot trust your translation.

And if you can’t trust the output to be comprehensive or correct, then why would you trust something like system security to an LLM? Any security analyst who deserves their job would never take that risk. You don’t cut those corners.

Quick reminder: rhyming dictionaries exist. LLMs solved a solved problem, but worse.

Once again, even if the billionaire’s toxic Nazi plagiarism machine was useful, it is so morally repugnant that it should never be used, which makes it functionally useless. This is an absolute statement, but trying to “um actually” that makes you look like either a boot-licker, a pollutant, a Nazi, a plagiarist, an idiot, or some combination of those.

I would rather look like an absolutist. How about you?

The only way to know if LLM output is accurate is to know what an accurate output should look like, and if you know that, you don’t need an LLM. If you don’t know what an accurate output should look like, an LLM is equally likely to confidently lie to you as it is to help you, making you dumber the more you use it. The only other situation is if you know what an accurate output should look like, but you want an inaccurate one, which is a bad thing to encourage.

“Demonstrably useful” is a lie. It’s a blatant and obvious lie. LLMs are so actively detrimental to their users, and society as a whole, that calling them useless is being generous. And even if they were the most beneficial thing on the planet, there is still no reason to use the billionaire’s toxic Nazi plagiarism machine.

But Danny DeVito is the biggest thirst trap of them all!

I am directly talking about the Monk, though

If that was the case, it’d be phrased more like Two Weapon Fighting from the fighter’s fighting styles. But instead of saying you can add your modifier, it says you can make an unarmed strike. Which means you couldn’t before.

There’s a phenomenon in TTRPGs called a Mermaids Amulet. There was an item in a game that let a mermaid breathe in air, which was the ONLY thing that indicated they normally couldn’t. In short, a rule was only shown to exist by an ability to overcome it.

Monks have the ability to make a bonus action unarmed strike after making an attack, which would be redundant if the dual wielding rules let you do that.

I think that has less to do with monks and more to do with your players.