𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚐

not being defined except for being confusing and possibly enraging

You just defined shitposting, my guy.

That’s all Adam Carolla, baby.

He hates ‘fair share’ rhetoric, and boy does he go off about it.

[redacted]

The Hill buried the lede for agitprop.

“The president was irate, saying that I could not keep doing this to him,” Fauci wrote, according to the Times.

“He said he loved me, but the country was in trouble, and I was making it worse. He added that the stock market went up only 600 points in response to the positive Phase 1 vaccine news, and it should have gone up 1,000 points, and so I cost the country ‘one trillion dollars,’” Fauci reportedly said.

To be fair, “Trump Took COVID Response Personally” doesn’t do much either.

Edit: grammar

[redacted]

He got a star for makin’ poopy.

This is the reality I came to. The establishment would have pulled out all the stops, guaranteed. If Bernie couldn’t take North Carolina, he certainly could not take Congress. Facts.

Don’t confuse intelligence with greed.

Trump is bad news for stability.

If the rule applied to outcomes, people would simply write headlines that negate any they so choose.

Nope.

“This engine is woke.”

I want to know why mainstream media keeps referencing what he said during his 2020 campaign. His 2016 campaign was way more insidious and is actually related to the election interference conviction.

I am concerned about the energy abuse of LLMs, but it gets worse. AGI is right around the corner, and I fear that law of diminishing return may not apply due to advantages it will bring. We’re in need of new, sustainable energy like nuclear now because it will not stop.

Would you kindly find a source for that?

I can personally speak from the 80s, so that’s not exactly a golden age of reliable information. There was concern about scale of infinite growth and power requirements in a perpetual 24/7 full-load timeshare by people that were almost certainly not qualified to talk about the subject.

I was never concerned enough to look into it, but I sure remember the FUD: “They are going to grow to the size of countries!” - “They are going to drink our oceans dry!” … Like I said, unqualified people.

Another factor is that there aren’t that many supercomputers in the world, a handful of thousand of them.

They never took off like the concerned feared. We don’t even concern ourselves with their existence.

Edit: grammar

Supercomputers were feared to be untenable resource consumers then, too.

Utilizing nuclear to feed AI may be the responsible and sustainable option, but there’s a lot of FUD surrounding all of these things.

One thing is certain: Humans (and now AI) will continue to advance technology, regardless of consequence.

Wow, good catch!

The forefront of technology overutilizes resources?

Always has been.

Edit: Supercomputers have existed for 60 years.

Listen to the audio, it never specifies case.

Sauce

That’s ligma, perverts.