Probably not. Remember Ashley Madison, that matchmaking site for adultery that leaked everything? It's still around. The parent company changed its name and they switched their tag line for a couple years, then switched back. Apparently they've still got tens of millions of members.

Your government, bank, insurance, physician, all of these have quite extensive laws regarding the security of your information.

Giving your personal information to a random dude on the Internet (and yes, it's a random dude)? A random dude on the Internet who's encouraging you to gossip?

And gives instructions for how to perform an abortion.

I suspect the anti-abortion Christians just want pregnancy to be a punishment for having sex.

I've got a steel 1 L bottle about the same age that goes camping and kayaking a lot and mostly rolls around the car the rest of the time. Mine was free swag at a conference, but I've definitely gotten the $65 CAN they apparently cost out of it.

Financial advisors generally make money too. It's hard not to. The proper question is whether they make more money than a cheaper algorithm would.

Public market financial advisors don't. It has been demonstrated over and over, including at least one study using actual monkeys throwing things (which probably isn't cheaper, given how expensive lab monkeys are).

It's plausible that certain VCs, operating in markets they know a lot about, do. I doubt the average does though. The very fact that they talk about the "power law" implies the investment picking is no better than random. The VC does provide a service the public market financial advisor doesn't though: it's quite a bit more difficult to find and invest in startups than it is to just buy an index fund.

It wouldn't be a canon without some retconning. It was easier back then though. Scrolls get lost so easily. Unfortunately a lot of really great fanfic got decanonized too. Enoch is wild.

Christianity really wants to be monotheistic, so the Jewish god is the Christian god, his son is really himself, and there's this ghost involved too, but it is also the same. Not *the same* of course, they kicked a dude out for saying that, but the same. Oh, and don't say that what Jesus said is incompatible with what that god guy said, because that got another dude kicked out.

And yet you run the executable no problem?

Conclusions are usually baloney. So much so that lots of journals discourage even having them.

Typically retracted papers do come with a notice stating why they were retracted.

People kept pointing out that "human resources" is pretty dehumanizing so they came up with friendlier sounding names.

It's not permanent. The half life under normal circumstances is a few hours.

Motors in the seat stem apparently.

Professor objected to his use of the STL in a data structures class.

The drinking is harder than you think. An MBA once showed me that it's very important to hold your drink in your left hand so your right is warm and dry to shake hands. It takes real practice.

You're nicely illustrating the issue with AI reasoning. Humans "reason" mostly by deciding what they believe then coming up with truthy stories to support that belief. When confronted with actual conflicting evidence or proper reasoning to the contrary, they make up more stories to "rationalize" it, or, that failing, make excuses.

The reasoning systems are generally made up of an LLM, a bunch of more general purpose neural network layers, and some conventional logic systems. The neural network part comes up with what it thinks is true based on its training, tries to get its logic systems to support it, and, as we've seen, often ignores the result when it doesn't like it.

The problem with AI "reasoning" is that it's a pretty good copy of human "reasoning."