No, it doesn’t. My comment was nothing more than a grammatical correction, that “opinion” is not what you call an unsupported assertion/claim; that’s not what the word means.
I was not engaged in the underlying argument, at all, yet your response is a sputtering, indignant tirade about how I’m shifting the burden of proof, etc.
Read more carefully.
Pay more attention to who you’re replying to. Your comment makes zero sense directed at me.
No evidence of your claims and thus it is your opinion
Nerd time, but:
That’s not how it works. Opinions are subjective by definition. An assertion without evidence is not an “opinion”.
Yeah, that’s not definitely not on YouTube, the final ‘star score’ was effectively indicative only of the ratio of the 5-stars to the 1-stars. The infinitesimal minority that would actually thoughtfully rate 2, 3, or 4 stars made no difference at all.
Is there another more ‘generic’ German term that would fit when talking about this period of time in retrospect? So you could have one line that says the German equivalent of ‘he was the leader in Germany during this time period, commonly referred to by the title Fuhrer’, and then no need to keep using “Fuhrer” anymore in the rest of the article.
If your concerns are ethical, then you should be consuming only indie music from unsigned artists
…who could be using AI, lol.
The doctor would likely mention that it would apply to masturbation also, lol
To me the even more obvious response to the quoted bit is ‘you know it affects your ability to orgasm from masturbation too, right?’
I don’t get it either, sounds like a complete non-sequitur to me.
Combine that with some rape cases that get swept under the rug with phrases like, “boys will be boys,” “she was asking for it,” or even something as outright cruel as “it’s the only way she’d get laid anyways,” and yeah, where OP is coming from isn’t too hard to understand.
And yet, cases of male victims of female rapists get “swept under the rug” basically 100% of the time, but the outrage toward that is non-existent, even though the also-swept-under-the-rug fact is that women rape men just as often as men rape women:
And now the real surprise: when asked about experiences in the last 12 months, men reported being “made to penetrate”—either by physical force or due to intoxication—at virtually the same rates as women reported rape (both 1.1 percent in 2010, and 1.7 and 1.6 respectively in 2011).
In other words, if being made to penetrate someone was counted as rape—and why shouldn’t it be?—then the headlines could have focused on a truly sensational CDC finding: that women rape men as often as men rape women.
The whole reason a woman raping a man isn’t simply called “rape” in these statistics is because of successful explicitly anti-male lobbying by feminists like Mary Koss, and NOW, who don’t think it “counts” as rape when the man is the victim of a woman.
As one of these male victims of a female rapist, it’s always extremely frustrating to see women complaining to men about things like under-reporting, or men who get away with it, when it’s so much worse for men and boys, that the average person believes that a female raping a male is something that is literally impossible.
A boy got molested by his female teacher, and she won child support from him! Could you in a million years imagine a male rapist achieving such a legal judgment from a girl he molested?
I’ve never used AI for interview stuff, beyond a little thing that gave me sample questions and assessed my recorded verbal response, to use as prep before an interview, but in reading that, I remembered that Nvidia has a thing where a visual effect will make your eyes look like you’re looking straight into the camera all the time (unless they’re totally closed of course), and imagined this type of person using that as further subterfuge during the interview, to conceal the ‘looking down’.
Luckily, the average person leaning completely on AI for an interview is not nearly savvy enough for this sort of thing, in my experience.
You are definitely not beating the “deliberately obtuse” allegations.
In no way did Musk insist that the entire plan be tweeted in plain text as tweets, and no reasonable person would consider putting a link to X (pardon the pun) in a Twitter thread as not counting as ‘putting X in a Twitter thread’.
“not linked document” is literally a lie, why would you think it wouldn’t be identified as such, when his exact words are so readily available?
This article is about Brazil.
According to the same article, 42% of drug dealers did not complete elementary school. Not quite the same situation as what it’s like in the US.
Do you think this is some new idea that hasn’t been tried yet, or something?
The people still starving are starving due to abuse, neglect, political instability, and war. None of those things can be fixed with money, or improved production. What good is improved production going to do the masses when the local warlord takes control of it (and therefore the food supply)? Arguably, creating those tools in areas where that unrest/instability still exists is likely to make things worse, not better, because it literally makes the oppressors more efficient.
The bottom line is that you can’t end world hunger until/unless there is world peace.
Did you read anything but the title?
So you’re essentially admitting to the headline being misleading. We can agree on that.
Moving production around and creating new transporrt routes are not ongoing costs.
It’s also not the reason world hunger still exists.
A URL linking to a fully fleshed-out plan can be linked in much less than 140 characters, you’re being deliberately obtuse, and also evading the main issue I pointed out, that their response was a colossal backpedal from their initial sensational claim.
They aid by creating and developing agricultural infrastructure, not just buying people food.
I include all of that when I say “food” above. Those things also don’t have a cost that goes away after a handful of years.
The headline talks about “ending hunger by 2030”, not ending hunger until 2030. The notion that any fixed dollar amount of X spent now will/could “end” hunger in 4 years time is ridiculous, full stop.
That’s not the number of people using Amazon, that’s the number of people paying for a premium subscription service on top of their Amazon usage. No one, whether they buy things on Amazon or not, needs Prime.
That is the point they’re making.