You're confused or replying to the wrong person. I never made any arguments regarding human evolution or historical diets nor did I make any argument against anything.

My guess is because vegetarians believe it will be easier to convince omnivores to be vegetarians if there were at least a transition-period meat-substitute product to make the transition easier, i.e., not have to give up burgers cold turkey.

I don't get why you or anyone puts up with such people. I'd start the dinner on time. If that person misses it, oh well. Actions should have consequences.

The numbers before were accurate, they just weren't the best metrics. The job numbers stop reporting you if you aren't actively looking for a job. Which means long term unemployed people aren't counted. There is sense to that for some groups (retired, disabled and unable to work), but not for people who are healthy enough to be in the job market and can't afford to do nothing.

The inflation numbers were accurate, but they didn't include housing. Which makes CPI kind of useless, as housing is the biggest item in most people's budget.

That being said, while the metrics were flawed, they were accurate measurements by and large. So one could rely on them and find insights as long as you keep in mind what they don't track.From now on though- when an incredibly political person known for his willingness to make shit up (including outright lies on inflation) removes the head of the bureau creating the numbers and replaces them with someone who will give him numbers he wants? Yeah, from now on they're untrustworthy.

It's not irrelevant. To understand what the program is actually doing and how the computers actually work, you need to understand pointers. They aren't necessary in day to day work, but not understanding how they work will lead to subtle bugs.

Not directly. But if you own and administer the site hosting a page containing such a link, you can write a crib job that goes through all the hosted HTML files looking for such links and effectively "click" them. But if you can do that, you could almost as easily replace the goo.gl links.

Though I didn't plan on it, my phone's area code doesn't match my geographic area code, so allegedly local calls from my phone's area code aren't actually geographically local to me. So I'm not interested in such calls.

As far as the rest, whether they spoof the numbers or not doesn't matter since I'm not interested in talking to anybody from their alleged area codes anyway.

Sure, some spam calls would get through from my geographic area code since it would be white listed, but it would still be a huge improvement. It's rare I get a spam call from my geographic area code now anyway.

What I want is deny/allow lists based on entire area codes.

The law is unconstitutional, as other similar laws have been found in the past. It hasn't been removed from the books only because nobody has been charged for it in a century, thus nobody has had a chance to challenge it on those grounds. The exception is for the military, which has the UMC which is allowed to have stricter restrictions on behavior.

YEah, none of this will happen. Let's assume they don't have a prenup (in which case the settlement of assets is dictated by that). The wife would get 50% of what was generated during their marriage at best. That may include the house, but its value would be subtracted from what she got in cash. Alimony... depends on a lot of circumstances, but it's more rare and generally a limited time. Plus we have no idea what the wife's income is, she may make as much or more.

Will he get a job again? Of course he will. Probably not as a CEO in the near term, but he'll absolutely get jobs where he isn't a visible presence for the company. And in a few years the CEO jobs will open again, because nobody is going to give a fuck a year from now.

As for going to jail- no. If the alimony (which is unlikely to exist) does exist and it is set high, he goes back to court to get it lowered. Because alimony is based on your income (with a few exceptions for example purposefully staying unemployed). Given that he was just publicly fired, his current income potential is very low, so any alimony would be matchingly low. There are formulas for these things.

So in other words, your just spouting misogynistic bullshit.

No, it's not. Thinking requires understanding. Machines are incapable of doing that. They can recombine new facts, but they cannot and will never be able to think.

The cognitive ability of AIs is 0. AIs do not think. They do not reason. They do not understand. They can probablistically predict output based on training data, and an input, and that's it. With programming, it can find bits of code on the internet that are related to the keywords you give it, but it can't actually code a damn thing on its own. Which makes it a slightly less useful version of stack overflow, and for it ever to become better it will need a quantum leap of new techniques that are not currently on the horizon.

Not all the world is the US. In the US, you're relatively safe... well at least as long as you were born a US national, it seems we're deporting those who aren't. And we'll see where that trendline goes.

Other nations outside the US and EU? Safety varies a lot. There are plenty of governments happy to punish or disappear protest starters.

If I read copyrighted material and then write my own story using information in what I read is that infringement?

It depends. If you wrote the same story, but with just the names of characters and places changed, then yes. In general, it depends on how similar your story is to the original.

Do clif notes have to pay for the rights to publish notes on other authors books?

No. Their notes were written by them and so are copyrighted by them. If they give excerpts, that falls under fair use. They can't quote the entire book, however, even if they give notes on every paragraph.

Isn't this is what ChatGPT does?

There are two parts to this: whether the copy of what CharGPT was trained on was a legally obtained copy in the first place and whether ChatGPT can be induced to regurgitate verbatim copies. The NYT demonstrated that, with the right prompting, ChatGPT can be induced to regurgitate copies of NYT articles.

Once I learn about something I am able to tell people what I have learned. Am I breaking the law if I tell my grandkids about a story I read.

It depends how you tell them. If you give, for example, highlights, then no. If you write down a copy and give them the copy, then yes. Also note that, assuming you either paid for your copy of the book or you borrowed it from a library, then the copy you used was a legally authorized copy to begin with.

I just don't see a lot of difference between asking an AI a question and having it tell me what it has learned than asking a human and having them tell me what they learned assuming they were trained on the same materials.

In many cases, ChatGPT used unauthorized copies to begin with. At that point, they're already guilty of copyright infringement. If the book the human read was an unauthorized copy, then that human is guilty of copyright infringement. Whether they tell you anything is irrelevant: they're already guilty.

Assuming both legally obtained the info they were trained on.

Bingo.