Make them bid for their place on the queue!

I don't understand what you mean here. I've already said my persuasive piece. If it convinces anyone to change their stance, then great. If not, then so be it. It is what it is. But I don't see any reason to go back and delete it just because I don't think anyone's going to be persuaded. That's extra work for no gains.

Do you not want to make the world a better place though? I'm assuming yes. How would it help to share misleading articles over another containing the exact same information but without being misleading?

If you're wealthy enough, you can. Otherwise, all your time is going to be spent working (not through producing art) to make ends meet and resting so you can do it all over again the next day.

Gotta stick your finger in there and find the center pull end.

lowest charisma

What? This guy has one of the strongest cult followings of any human being I've ever heard of. How is that low charisma?

It's not a perfect analogy because no one is paid to eat ice cream. People do get paid to produce art, and that allows a lot of people to pursue their passion while still being able to house and feed themselves. Automating art and making it cheaper than humans means they would no longer be able to do that. We've automated away jobs that people actually enjoy doing. It's not banning per se, but it greatly reduces how much time people can spend on it.

I never argued against the facts being reported. They are indeed important and should be included. What I'm criticizing is the way it's being presented.

I'm not arguing against offending people either. Offend all you want (tbh I've never understood what it even means to be offended, but that's besides the point). What I'm against is manipulating the minds of those you call "sheeps". The ones who don't read past headlines and still form strong opinions from them. Opinions that translate to actions and have negative consequences on other people. Blocking you isn't going to change any of that. Besides, I enjoy the exercise.

Writing to the editors isn't as interesting because i don't have my thoughts fully sorted out on this matter and I wouldn't expect a response, let alone a back and forth. It's discussions like these that help figure out what I really think about it, so I appreciated that you're willing to take the time to talk about it.

We can agree that the reader is responsible for themselves, what they take in and how they respond to it. But why shouldn't the author also have responsibility? Or any of us for what we share on social media? Everyone has an impact on the world. Shouldn't we aim to minimize these impacts when they're negative?

I can choose for myself. You can choose for yourself. We cannot choose for other people.

Yeah, they're two different things. The commonality is one person's actions negatively affecting other people. As the party that's being negatively affected, it makes no sense to say that it's not your problem just because you're not the cause of the problem. Being negatively affected by it makes it your problem.

If someone picks up a gun and accidentally shoots you in the foot, what are you going to say? "I'm not an idiot. I know gun safety. If you shoot me in the foot, that's your problem, not mine."

Recovery time can vary a lot depending on the person, the particular muscle group how much volume you do, how hard you push, quality of your sleep, and a bunch of other factors. It's not wild to have arms that recover faster than average.

It's perfectly valid to have a fluctuating schedule too. It's not ideal, but life rarely cooperates to give us ideal conditions. I'd say that if changing it to a fixed schedule is too complicated or makes it less enjoyable and harder to adhere to, then don't do it. Based on what you've written, it seems like you do have a pretty well thought out plan on how to autoregulate and adapt to whatever your work schedule throws at you. That is in itself a rigorous plan. Not everything has to align with our seven day calendars.

behoove

And just like that, Mike Isratel popped into my head to narrate for the rest of your post.

What makes you think it wouldn't? How do you inform yourself about the happenings of the world if not through the news? Or from people who read the news? And of those people, how often do you think they read past the headlines before jumping to a conclusion?

It has nothing to do with the meaning. If your training set consists of a bunch of strings consisting of A's and B's together and another subset consisting of C's and D's together (i.e. [AB]+ and [CD]+ in regex) and the LLM outputs "ABBABBBDA", then that's statistically unlikely because D's don't appear with A's and B's. I have no idea what the meaning of these sequences are, nor do I need to know to see that it's statistically unlikely.

In the context of language and LLMs, "statistically likely" roughly means that some human somewhere out there is more likely to have written this than the alternatives because that's where the training data comes from. The LLM doesn't need to understand the meaning. It just needs to be able to compute probabilities, and the probability of this excerpt should be low because the probability that a human would've written this is low.

I don't think we would've had so many lessons on this in school if it didn't need to be taught.

Have people just completely forgot how search engines work? If you search for two things and get shit results, it means those two things don't appear together.

A sentence saying she had her ovaries removed and that she is fertile don't statistically belong together, so you're not even getting that.

I'm talking about the problem with the article, not problems with society or the world or anything else. No one's stopping you from being upset at multiple problems at once. Unfortunately, I don't have the means of reaching the arsonist nor the author of the article to make my complaints, nor the means to experience anger (alexithymia), but I can communicate with the people of Lemmy and encourage people to actually think about what they read. It's also just a fun exercise to see how biased articles are written in the first place.

No one is making fun of the LGBQT community because of him.

Not making fun of. Promoting fear, and the idea that they are all dangerous. Rereading the comments, it's actually more an attack on anyone who supports the LGBTQ community than on LGBTQs. I'll quote some of them below for you.

A lipstick wearing arsonist. Sounds like your typical demokrat. (toadlick2)

Another Trans-Terrorist...that'll by the twit 40 Years in Jail. Good, throw away the key. (Pennsyltuckian)

This is what your typical Democrat looks like. (europa2832)

Look at this poster child of the liberal left.. these liberals are the most violent, the most bigoted and the greatest threat to our country.. they say they are for peace.. NO !!! They are not!!! Do u see Conservatives doing this?? Dont Give me that BS of January 6!!! (rockaway1)

This is the face of the left. And they are endorsing it. Nanny P and Schumer and all the crazies in that parties are endorsing violence. (Zee Chen)

I picked out the ones that are most explicit, but just about every comment is saying the same thing.

It would be more effective to "snitch" on doctors who deny such care.