So, either you’re accusing me of tone policing and engaging with me anyway, or you’re not accusing me of tone policing yet continue to meander off topic anyway. XD
To be frank, I don’t care about your tone, I’m concerned with the disconnect between what you say the topic is (why people feel a certain way) and how you’re choosing to engage (insisting on another perspective instead).
In what way is making a counter point disingenuous?
It reveals that your intent is not to comprehend another perspective, but to insist upon your own.
Why do I need to just blindly accept what someone says without any pushback?
The thing that you’re being asked to accept is that this someone believes what they say they believe.
Nobody’s asking you to blindly assume that this someone is being honest, but making a counterpoint is not the same thing as asking clarifying questions to better understand their perspective or probe it for the inconsistencies that would indicate deception.
I’d like to argue that this isn’t a slow collapse, but a remarkably rapid one. The Roman Empire, for example, took almost 300 years from the Antonine Plague that halted it’s growth before the last western emperor was deposed, or almost 500 years if counting from Julius Ceasar and the eruption at Pompei.
The USA, by contrast, entered its decline a mere 25 years ago when it expended vast resources attempting to conquer the Graveyard of Empires, and only just last year ceded its position as global hegemon to China. At this rate, the American Empire might only last another generation or two.
My intent was to try to understand why people feel the way they feel. If I disagree with a reason someone has, am I just supposed to be like “oh, ok”, and move on?
Make up your mind, is your point to understand why people feel the way they feel or to convince them to feel in a way you agree with?
Am I not supposed to give any rebuttal to any points whatsoever
Rebuttals are for arguments, not for understanding.
If you can’t look at things from their perspective then you should be asking questions, not trying to convince them that their perspective is wrong.
The early days of “AI” were a full generation before the beginning of the internet, as it was formalized as an academic field back in the 50’s while ARPANET didn’t start admitting non-Defense users until the 80’s.
Are you saying I am being disingenuous in my intentions by making counter points in a discussion?
Yes, that’s very clearly what’s happening here.
The two are inseperable. The scale of large language models means they can only be trained by those who are able to spend hundreds of millions on data harvesting and compute.
Seems pretty enforcable to me. Hell, they were even able to compel the U.S. Olympic committee to pay out hundreds of millions when their lead team doctor sexually harassed so many athletes that he’ll be in prison for the rest of his life.
What fact about yourself are you least willing to share with strangers?
If there is no way to tell if that is a reasonable question for me to ask, then by what metric do you decide whether or not to answer it? Does that metric act as a stand-in for “reasonableness” to you, and if so then how do you square it with your earlier insistence that drawing such a line is impossible? If not, why?
And there’s another one for my block list.
Short version, distillation isn’t a chemical process but a simple physical state change from liquid to gas and back. Alcohol vapors can be explosive when mixed with Oxygen in an appropriate ratio, but there generally is no potential source of ignition between the boiling chamber and the cooling chamber and the expanding vapors push the oxygen out of the system early on in a production cycle.
Producing meth, however, is a multi-step process requiring both chemical and physical state changes with a panoply of reagents and waste products which are corrosive, toxic, flammable, explosive, or even potentially radioactive. Some of those waste products are gasses that react explosively with air, or volatile organic compounds which have to be vented from the production equipment and subsequently settle and condense into a residue that contaminates all surfaces in or near the meth lab. That residue can include substances which ignite spontaneously on contact with water, further increasing the risk of fire or explosion and turning any firefighting operations into a hazmat operation.
Something something “Butlerian Jihad”
I get so many compliments on my fancy moustache, but nobody notices my tits unless I wear a push-up bra. XD
It’s not just that though, the relief from compression is an added bonus on top.
The truth is that breasts are just more enjoyably sensitive than ballsacks. Even when I shave them smooth, the feeling of a soft fabric against them is still less than half as enjoyable as on my tits.
Granted, I’m sure that my experience isn’t necessarily universal and there are ways in which balls are more sensitive. I’d rather get kicked in the chest than in the crotch, for example.
Hard agree on the stigma against free titties, though. I’m lucky enough to live in a state where bare chests are legal and I’m looking forward to going hiking topless this spring.
Enby here with the rare perspective which can confirm that men will never understand this peak.
Sorry guys, but as awesome as it feels to go to bed free-balling, that satisfaction really doesn’t compare to having a warm, soft blanket tucked up around your bare tits (especially after they’ve been bound up in a bra all day).
Sleeping in clothing is just weird to me to begin with, but if I had to wear one article of underwear to bed then I’d take briefs or even nut-hugging boyshorts before I wore anything tighter around my tits than a loose nightgown.
Gotta spend it somewhere. Charge some batteries or else dump it into a load cell.