iNow

I encourage you not to build castles in sand nor stack new hypothesis on top of unsupported guesswork

It’s limited only by your imagination. How many foods exist? What happens when you combine ingredients in new ways, or prepare them differently?

Similar trends are seen based on where in a project one is. Bigger riskier projects, building something most commonly, teams start out super cautious and focused on every single minute detail, but by the end have desensitized to the risks and mental processing has returned more to the background. It’s the last days where we see spikes in injury and error. I’m sorry to hear that. I hope their immigration and living status isn’t also effected as a result

Thanks for the clear answer. As exchemists reply reminds us, however, this is entirely subjective and what's considered a "qualification" to you may differ for others, hence the "Kelly should be president, let's be honest" was perhaps an overstatement (one potentially influenced by the ridiculous misogyny and racism we keep seeing everywhere in our politics)

In racing there’s an old adage: “In order to finish first, you must first finish.” The basic idea is you can’t drive so fast you fly off the circuit and take yourself out of contention. Priority #1 is you must finish the race since that is a prerequisite to winning it. Like you, I’m sympathetic to the idea of a crossover ticket, as I suspect many here are. Harris / Romney, for example, sounds kinda awesome if you don’t bother thinking too deeply about it. But the moment you look under the covers at what drives the voting numbers across districts and across electoral college states in the places that shift electoral outcomes, you can see pretty immediately that such a move would have one outcome: You would lose. There’s a reason the political parties focus so heavily on particular blocs of voters and ideological camps, and it’s not because they’re seeking purity among their flocks (tho it surely appears that way sometimes). It’s because that’s what it takes to win, and if you don’t win then it’s all just academic counting of how many angels can dance on a pinhead (no, I don’t mean Trump)

We’re discussing US politics. Sensibility has nothing whatsoever to do with it. 😉

No shit, Sherlock

You mentioned earlier that Senator Mark Kelly should be president, ending the post with "let's be honest." In that same spirit of honesty and given the context of thread, it was implicit there that you think he's a better choice for Potus than former Senator and current VP Kamala Harris. Continuing the honest dialog, I'm genuinely curious: Which specific qualifications (beyond astronauts being neato and cool) led you to conclude that Kelly (who's served on an aging committee and one on armed forces) is a better choice than Harris (who served on the Judiciary committee and also the joint committee on intelligence and also was Vice President and also AG for the largest state in the union before all of that)? Qualifications: Why are Kellys a better fit than Harris' in your opinion?

That mostly allows institutions and businesses to leverage other models like Llama and mistral or GPT-4o or even Gemini, which is why I asked… they’re all different, yet your claims sound generalized (even if restricted the conversation just to IBMs own Granite, your approach seems too broad and sweeping IMO)

Which one, specifically?

Which model(s) specifically?

Very likely did, I agree. sounds like those were rumblings from his team, but not him directly (if the reports I encountered were accurate)

False equivalence

Well, especially since every single person being seriously considered as a possible alternative, one after another all the way down the line, came out and endorsed her this morning Even Joe Manchin made it a point to say he wasn’t going to run (tho didn’t yet endorse)

According to the Cook political report, AZ also recently moved from Toss-Up to Leans Republican and he’s popular there so could potentially help swing it blue