It might be about general knowledge of how colliders work, the sentence structure does it no favours, but half way through I realised it had to be intentional/beneficial due to knowing the only possible way a collider generates heat as a byproduct.
Where as someone that doesn’t know much about colliders might read that sentence and assume it’s like radiative heat or something.
Yes, but they normally do their best to pretend it isn’t the case. Though there is of course the argument that this ‘is’ their best.
Did they do the math on that sentence?
Anti-fascists and other anti-americans.
Anti-fascist = Anti-american
Divide both sides by anti.
Fascist = American
The chat bot just assumes it’s in the context of active war. Not that there isn’t even a war. There are no active combatants or “effectively surrendering” combatants. There is just people accused of a crime they may, or may not, be guilty of… and missiles.
Even if it was in the context of a war it would be a crime, but there isn’t even that context. It’s murder, arguably worse than war crime, it’s crime, and one of the worst crimes there is.
What does it say about stealing boats? Again without the context of being in a war…
That’s the same one. 6 is US 3.
If they would have focussed on making a good place first, and then corrupting it with commercialism, they could have at least boiled a few of us frogs. But you can’t start with the commercialism foot forward and the quality foot behind and expect to make a place worth visiting.
Here’s the thing, if there was drugs on the boat, killing them still isn’t ok. But no, we don’t even “know” if they are telling the truth about the drugs either. We have no idea why they want these people killed. We have to “trust” them… I don’t.
Ok, so it’d be like if a wikipedia page about jesus said he was “our lord and saviour” instead of saying “some people consider him to be their lord and saviour”. A page for “Lord and saviour” as a phrase might still list jesus as one possible link.
Basically taking a first person position on it, instead of a third person position. Like grokipedia is writing from first person perspective that Hitler is the fuhrer, which when you consider that it is a significant departure from the wikipedia article, as only 0.01% of the content of grokipedia is, suggests it’s a hand crafted article written by someone that would refer to hitler personally as the leader, and not as someone some people used to call “the leader”.
There is a reason it was edited immediately as soon as people noticed, due to how bad it looked once pointed out.
Only his followers actually use(d) that title for him, everyone else when using that word about him, would say it’s the title his followers call(ed) him. Like how wikipedia is using it. Grok is just using it as his title, like a follower would.
You can think of it kind of like “dear leader” in north korea. Anyone calling him that outside of north korea is at least doing it sarcastically or using air quotes. This would be like if the news called him that with a sincere reverent tone.
To be fair, the wikipedia article says he was called that by the people that followed him. It never calls him that itself.
The grokipedia article, just calls him that.
A subtle, but very important, distinction.
Not to mention the other important part where grok buries any mention of the holocaust 13000 words in, where as it’s in the intro on wikipedia.
Keep in mind, by default, grokipedia started with a copy of what wikipedia said, so any changes are what was hand-edited on purpose.
The changes speak to what they wanted it to say and do differently.
Yeah, that’s fine, a bit outside the metaphor as there is no analog.
Basically just that socially enforced boundaries are a thing even in public spaces.
But we are allowed, and encouraged to read it, just not post. It is public.
I’m not sure the specific name of it. Something like “women only” but I’m not finding it in search. I browse lemmy by all, so it comes up every now and then for me.
We are fully allowed to read it, just don’t post. Reading it is very insightful.
Lets say you go to a public building and in that public building there is a room marked women only, lets say in that room are some toilets, would you go in that room? Since it’s a public space in the same building as all the other public space, the only difference is that portion of the space is understood to be only for women, or those that identify as women.
You may stumble in accidentally, and you will be gently corrected, but if you keep stumbling in, it’s gonna start to seem weird, and the corrections will get less gentle.
Umm, does he not realise we would also want those pedophiles in jail too?
Like sure ‘every pedophile’ is better, but half is a good start, we’ll get the rest in due time. Stuff is constantly leaking.
Is that not what the other commenters here are arguing? Cuz even when I ask them if that’s what they are saying they keep answering like it is what they are saying, that I must not have gone to an american school. No, I didn’t go to an american school, is it really that bad there? Like Canada is right next to the states, it can’t be that much worse just crossing one border.
I don’t get what you are saying? The kids didn’t do anything wrong? Or they shouldn’t also be in trouble? I don’t get why everyone is saying the kids should be allowed to steal?
Yes I have been to high school, no kids didn’t steal food from the teachers in my high school. But even if they did, they would have been wrong to do so…
Is it really a common thing nowadays for kids to steal from teachers? And not considered wrong when they do?
I really thought the reason it didn’t mention the trouble the kids got in was just cuz including underage children in news articles has to be so redacted as to essentially be pointless unless they are the main focus of the article. Not that they are considered to have not done anything wrong nowadays.
I’m not arguing that she wasn’t wrong, I state multiple times that she was wrong. He’s arguing the kids aren’t wrong at all. I maintain the kids also did something wrong.
That is generally the impetus behind religious institutions disdain for it. Their best chance to increase their numbers is through indoctrination of the children of their current members. Conversions rarely occur, despite how much they are talked up when they do.
They are, of course, wrong to think that. Toys, in practice, generally increase intimacy and likelihood of a couple having children. But not as much as being raised your entire life being told that it is the entire purpose of life and if you don’t have as many kids as you theoretically could, you have done yourself a disservice. So as long as they conflate the results, they will keep assuming they are correct in doing both.