Comment Contradicted headline (Score 1) 217
The headline on this story is contradicted by the first sentence of the story.
I just want to go to the web and type in the name of a movie or show and see what platform it is even on - because nobody remembers.
Google does that for me. Any show or movie search result includes a box on the right that shows "all watch options."
What's the difference between creativity and hallucination?
I don't want my queries for information to have creative answers, thankyouverymuch.
BMW has recently announced they're "incorporating ChatGPT" to their in-car software. That's a shitshow just waiting to happen.
You're not asking it for answers, you're giving it instructions, such as "set the air temperature to 25C", "Tune the radio to 103.5 FM", "Never use a turn signal when changing lanes", stuff like that. The same will be true for voice assistants on phones.
That got me permabanned from ever posting on Reddit again.
Looking at his posting history got you banned? That does seem harsh. I'm sorry to hear that. Did they use that to decide you were the person who contacted the police?
As a transgender person with my very own specific personal gender and a very scientifically awaken they, I couldn't agree more with you
I'm all for pronouns, but on New Year's morning that sentence is not so easy to parse.
But how is the quality of care?
Dollar for dollar? Much better.
US healthcare is no beacon of quality. It's far down the list of the world's best, but tops the list of most expensive.
Here's a non-paywalled version of the NYT article.
Thanks. Jeez the guy wasn't too bright, siphoning shipping fees and then charging shipping twice, drawing attention to the shipping.
For the more general population it's well known what kind of rabbit holes you can fall into on TVTropes or Wikipedia; why would chess moves be any different?
It'd be different because he'd be busy studying known lines. What you're describing is wasting time. That's not what elite players do or can afford to do.
It may be difficult to believe, but not impossible.
That's why I wrote "difficult to believe" rather than "impossible".
The only "evidence" seems to be nothing more than "He won a game that we think he shouldn't have won, therefore, he surely must be cheating." Seems very flimsy to me. What am I missing?
He was fully prepared for an obscure opening variation that Carlsen hadn't played before. He claims that it was just luck that he happened to have looked at it the day before. That's somewhat difficult to believe, as he would have been preparing for the game by studying Carlsen's known lines.
It's worth noting that being fed opening prep would never be detected as cheating. Known lines, even obscure ones, are not considered when doing cheat analysis. It has to be that way, as otherwise all GMs would appear to "cheat" when playing opening preparation.
Out of curiosity, how many females were competing?
Not sure. Here is the starting field It's littered with GMs and IMs. For an 8 year-old of any gender to finish as high as she did is amazing.
I am all for maintaining copyright until the author's passing. Many great works were written with large pauses in between, or over a long period of time (a decade or more).
Maybe I'm just cynical, but I'm not sure making yourself worth more dead than alive is such a good idea. I'd prefer a fixed term, shorter than the current absurdity. (even though I personally stand to benefit from the life+70).
UNIX is hot. It's more than hot. It's steaming. It's quicksilver lightning with a laserbeam kicker. -- Michael Jay Tucker
