Comment Re:I guess that explains their non-consensual ways (Score 1) 46
With so many RGB lights, your computer was just asking for it.
The last 999 were frauds, so this one *must* be the real thing.
and test ALL your food on a hamster first.
But only a hamster that you don't like.
How do you arrest someone in absentia ?
Even more confusing: The explosions we will see in 80 years, in 160 years, in 240 years... have already happened too.
What's the deal, is it just broadcasting re-runs?
Now let's see your ChatGPT equally compelling Maxist and Feminist critiques of science.
That works in politics (sadly), not science.
He was hoping it would work in courts too.
Probably an AI will advise the Board.
Isn't that illegal in Texas and Florida?
For example, Biden's justice department manufacturing novel legal theories [nytimes.com] to imprison non-violent political protesters...
Unlike Farty Don, who merely wants to shoot them.
Don't trust a company with "spin" in their name.
Certain topics do not lend themselves very well to the scientific method.
It's kind of hard to set up 100 universes, say, and run them through a few billion years. You can't do the experiment part.
Sometimes a hypothesis has potentially observable implications, even if a mad scientist can't reproduce everything in their lab.
I think it has been decades since cosmologists believed the universe is expanding at a constant rate.
IANAPhysicist, but isn't a thrust of 1g specific to the mass you are accelerating? Same device pushing heavier mass gives less acceleration?
Is a claim that you can create a thrust of 1g even meaningful without additional details?
According to the latest official figures, 43% of all statistics are totally worthless.
