They throw out all nuance and have absolutely no empathy or consideration that others need to live differently than them. Or hell, need to live differently than them in order to support their own lifestyle. I swear 90% of them have never lived outside the city they were born in.
But it’s not unethical to eat meat in itself, it’s because of the needing to kill an animal. The taste/shape/flavor of meat isn’t the unethical part right?
That’d be like saying it’s unethical to take free gifts because stealing is wrong.
I don’t think this is even an unpopular opinion anymore. Well, at least as long as you’re not asking scrum masters.
Well, definitely fits the prompt. Can I ask a follow up question? Why do you think it’s unethical to eat meat?
I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with the concept in general. Factory farms are hell holes. But I’m having trouble connecting your two points. But to me, the ethical issues with eating meat come down to the suffering the animal endured. If it’s a meat substitute, or eventually lab grown meat, that suffering doesn’t exist. So the ethical issues don’t apply.
Yea, if only there were real world applications for AI. Like image/video generation and editing, text generation including code, audio processing and generation, object recognition and image classification, fraud detection, medical diagnosis, predictions in general, protein folding, or even just general data analysis. Then it might actually take off.
OpenGPT is just an LLM but that’s only one small facet of AI. When people talk about AI and only mean LLMs or even one specific guy/company, it’s a clear sign they don’t know any more about AI than that one Vox article they read 2 months ago.
The whole “we don’t know how they work” thing is a bit overblown. We have all the formulas, we know exactly how the math and code works. You can go and look at the weights for every node, you’re just not going to derive any meaning or necessarily explain why one number works better than another.
Oh, I’m reducing you because you are wrong or are arguing in bad faith. Both good reasons to hit the down arrow.
The irony is completely lost on you, eh?
Yep, technology sure doesn’t start out expensive then get cheaper later. If only that were the case.
Lol, “People who disagree with me simply aren’t aware that there are EVs that are not BEVs.” Oh, no, we can read. We just think you’re wrong.
Let me throw out a guess, you think it’ll be the hydrogen FCEV’s that will take over? Those can be pretty expensive right now though. Do you think the technology will improve and get cheaper over time by any chance?
https://www.caranddriver.com/chevrolet/bolt-euv
So you just have a hydrogen full cell manufacturer’s name as your username and post extensively in https://kbin.social/m/Hydrogen for fun or do you think you maybe have a conflict of interest here and are being disingenuous?
And there are 5 other cars below $40k. Just because 1 car is expensive doesn’t mean others are.
There’s plenty of BEVs that are competitively priced to any other new car: https://www.caranddriver.com/features/g32463239/new-ev-models-us/
They might not be the car you choose to take on a road trip, but most days, I only need to drive less than 20 miles anyway.
Skimmed some of the studies as well. A few of the studies reported an estmated incidence rate of 4 per 1 million. And that’s just incidence rate. Meanwhile the mortality rate of covid that year was 1850 per million cases. Some of the names themselves are dead giveaways.
One of the other mentioned 7 kids who had complications from the vaccine. In the conclusion, it basically says “we gave them advil and they were good.”
It’s just more fear mongering and gish gallop.