swansont

I don’t think accusations of lying are funny, and basing it on AI even less so

And you’ll never get better if you outsource the practice. It’s like asking a computer to go do some sport or hobby. You won’t get any better at it unless it’s you that puts in the effort.

So there’s no excuse for not doing what is required. And it’s these people who are using it and posting AI slop here that precipitated the rule You mentioned chess in response to exchemist, not me. And then got rude about it. That’s why you don’t ask a random person a question that requires expertise And one of the issues is people using it for things where the answer isn’t in Wikipedia or the scientific pdfs, because they’re trying to generate a new theory. Or they’re looking for support of an idea that has none. That’s when the LLM makes up an answer, and does what it’s programmed to: making a plausible-sounding answer. It doesn’t care that it’s not a correct answer (because that’s its programming, and it can’t care anyway) We routinely do detect errors, and I’d thank you for the compliment but it’s not difficult to google a citation and see that there are no results for it, nor does it require extensive knowledge to know that lawyers are indeed human, or to do some simple math that has been botched. I thought you said it gave really good answers. That’s not a good thing. Nobody can stop you from using LLMs in unhealthy ways but you can’t use them here to give answers. That’s not changing.

We do? I never got the memo.

Time is linear, meaning things happen one after the other? That’s in contrast to the block universe philosophy, aka eternalism. It’s also not linear, as in the rate is not constant as viewed by others, as relativity shows. It doesn’t cause things to move at different speeds. Events don’t necessarily happen in the same order as seen by observers in different frames of reference.

But presumably not With the Wind by SUR or Sax by Fleur East (I remember reading a suggestion that turning on subtitles while watching sometimes identifies a song, in case you watch again) There are examples of tunes written just for the TV show, which are hard to track down, so that could be the case here

If you don’t know what the object is, how could you possibly know what breaks off of it?

If you look at a clearer page https://ncert.nic.in/textbook/pdf/kech106.pdf The equation is K’=1/K, though it’s still not easy to discern the “prime” mark (knowing the chapter and unit number would speed up the process of digging in to all this)

Like sheep, they do not so much fly as plummet.

Because you’re assuming only the identified products are made, and you aren’t destroying or creating any of the atoms - you’re just rearranging the configuration. You have CO and H2O. If you form CO2, you have 2 Hydrogens left, so you get H2. That accounts for all of the atoms.

And yet every example that’s come up contradicts this. The information is degraded as details change.

If the object is unidentified I can’t fathom how you’d identify them.

Yes, but there are still rules of engagement (or were, at the time of that incident). Typically they must be positively identified as hostile, so the question is what hostile act was witnessed, since the craft was not identified as belonging to a hostile force?

It’s a matter of taste, though, isn’t it? If you grew up liking meat, and still want that, you’re not going to replace that with a plate of veggies.

If you’re still looking, the Internet Movie Database often has soundtrack info for TV episodes.

Thst was touched on in another thread. It would have been a good question to ask during the testimony: why was permission to engage given?

If you’re reading Livescience’s story, there’s a bit og embellishment. NASA is a little less bold in its claim https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-says-mars-rover-discovered-potential-biosignature-last-year/ “[the sample] contains potential biosignatures, according to a paper published Wednesday in the journal Nature.”

I had the same notion, but research says they are, on occasion. Helicopters and other slow-movers, because it’s subsonic.

Yeah, you need to establish that the soul, or whatever, exists before worrying about this. “comes in/leaves through spacetime” is exceedingly nebulous.

Yeah, odd such a complex tale as “a rabbit’s foot is lucky” could remain intact.

We sorta do this all the time. Do organic things fall at a different rate than inorganic? Do astronauts on the ISS orbit differently as compared to the inorganic station?

Contrast that with a missile striking an alleged drug boat a few days ago https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m42bpQVK5tA This is zoomed in, since you can see the boat. Can’t say for sure the other conditions are identical, but you can see the bright flash of detonation, which is much brighter than the bright points on the water. Not the case with the UAP video

Can we? Yes. Must it happen? No. g=GM/r^2 The gravitational acceleration will depend on how much mass you have, and the configuration. If you have a spherically-symmetric configuration, the gravity at R only depends on the mass inside of R. The effect of the mass outside all cancels out. The gravity inside of a spherical shell is zero. Because the details matter, and you didn’t provide sufficient detail

And Santa is a story that’s not uniform across cultures and the traditions around Santa gift-giving have evolved over time. So yet another example that points out the lack of fidelity of oral tradition

I did see the b/w video, and there was no evidence of anything glowing, no heat plume of a rocket, and no detonation. I would ask about these things. I’d ask to see a video of a normal hellfire impact. I also saw a snippet of the testimony, where a witness said an object was 100 feet away (or something like that) and I would want to know how they determined the distance.