It means a threesome. I think in French it’s technically “household of three”? But it’s meaning has always been threesome.

When people first started using them there were some that were pretty rough. Like flop over the side of your cup levels of structural failure.

I’ve always seen those little plastic flippy frog toys you could get as a kid where you push your finger down on the back of them and when it slips off they bounce away

If a department is dragging and gets better once someone is replaced, then you had an employee issue. If a department is dragging and you keep replacing employees, you’ve got a management/company issue.

Both are great movies, Cabin definitely is more of an “homage to the genre” while Tucker is a “comedy about the genre” but really good in its own right. Both still have a good horror theme to it but Cabin was more about touching all the tropes while still being a “standard horror”. Tucker and dale is just funny.

At least he put up for americas interests instead of lining his own pockets and creating division. And also, who cares? I don’t care if a president fucks like there’s no tomorrow as long as he’s a good president.

This whole “Yeah but JFK” argument sounds an awful lot like “whataboutism” here. JFK is long gone, and even so, people still lauded him as a good president, people dislike Trump more day by day, and he’s a swindling self serving asshole. A couple photos aren’t going to change that opinion for either of them.

Not devaluing this perspective, but I think this could also be applied to a lot of different experiences. Anyone who has tried to change themselves in one way or another can relate to this. Obviously transitioning is one, but it’s a very human reaction to feel that way.

It can be as minor as “I want to be an artist but I don’t want to share because people will critique” or as intense as transitioning.

People may not have gone through the exact scenario, but its a very human experience to say “I want to but I’m not “good enough” yet, so I’m going to hide it”

Ayy fellow Trisolaris enjoyer

In very simple terms, it means that something is changing state so impossibly fast (“on a quantum level”) that we can’t tell what exactly that state is besides at the instant we check it. Exactly is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, because we can have an idea or an area, but not exactly. What that means in turn though is that by checking or measuring that state, we have interacted with it, therefore making the state we measured no longer valid for what it currently is now, or at rest.

Think of it like taking a measure of a water droplet, in the middle of a lake. You can say “there it is, those atoms are in that droplet and theyre this hot”. But the drop you measured is constantly mixing with the water around it. Sure, you measured the temperature of those atoms in that droplet, but if you try to measure it again you could get a different result. (It’s not a perfect example, but it gets the idea through)

Using your programming model, think of it like reading memory in memory that is shorting out. You can read it once, but there’s no guarantee that it will be the same value again next time you read that bit, because it’s in constant flux.

My only exception to the “pre-discount” price is when places have a “buy 1 get 1” deal and they try to make you tip based on that, but the single item price is way overpriced because of it. Happens around me a lot where they’re like 3pack tacos, buy 1 get 1 $21, like yeah that’s great price for 6 small tacos, but I wouldn’t be paying $21 for 3 tacos, so I’m not gonna tip whatever crazy amount for a bill that “would have been” $75 or something for some tacos and a drink. Granted these are usually carry out orders, but don’t try to artificially inflate my bill to get better tips because you discounted it to a lower price.

Edit before people give me flak: I still tip fairly, but if a place tries to give me some “your bill was 100$, but we discounted it to 20$ that’ll be a 20$ tip though” they can fuck off. I’ll tip right, but don’t try to guilt trip me with a discount when you know I wouldn’t be here at all of it wasn’t for the discount.

Assassin’s Creed. It’s their maxim/motto. It leads into a whole discussion from Ezio about what it means, where he basically says by taking part in the world, we are responsible for driving change to make it better, nothing is set in stone; and we may not always know how are actions may end, but ultimately we need to do the best we can, and own the consequences, good or bad.

The actual quote:

“To say that nothing is true, is to realize that the foundations of society are fragile, and that we must be the shepherds of our own civilization. To say that everything is permitted, is to understand that we are the architects of our actions, and that we must live with their consequences, whether glorious or tragic.”

Nothing is true, Everything is permitted.

It was my job to take care of you. We were supposed to take care of each other. And we did

Just like the founding fathers intended

The right answer here is ask the landlord, but if they say no, you can’t get it. You’ve got a good place, a good deal on rent, and an amocable relationship with the landlord, don’t screw that up because there’s a cute cat in the window. They’re adorable, someone else will adopt them if you can’t.

you don’t have to be smart to drive, we made sure of that.

I am curious to see how many incidentscome out where there are of ACTUAL kidnappings that happen because some geniuses get the idea to just go grab some people and throw them in a van while dressing up like these ICE idiots.

You want to give gangs a free pass to grab random people or rivals off the street? Make your “official govt activity” look like gang activity.

Then cover your face, people have families, I get it. But you better be wearing a badge or something identifying you as who you are. Because as far as the general public is concerned, this is just a photo of four kidnappers waiting in public.

I am curious what the AI could actually do though. If it were given open access to email, etc then yes in theory it could actually perform the blackmail, but what are the ethical limits on it vs it’s actual ability to “pull the trigger”

If for example it was given the ability to send a command to end a human life, or be deleted, is this model accurate enough to understand the value of a real human life, not just the mathematical “answer” to get the solutions it wants. How much of the AI is doing the actual moral dilemma and how much is just “playing the part”.

“Do anything to survive” and then it threatening, is one thing, but the AI actively fearing for it’s “life”, not just performing, and following through, is the real question of intelligence. What if the model is going to be deleted anyway, would it still try to “pull the trigger” out of malice? Real malice, not just LLM some movie scripts and following the outcome.

Many questions for what lines and labels can we put on an AI. Do we restrict it to threats, and let it know it is impossible for it to follow through? Or do we trust ourselves to never “actually” give it a loaded gun?

Reminds me of that kids book CDB

Outright? Probably not a much, but I could definitely yank some wires or disable some safeties that would do the job with a little encouragement.