It's an interesting point. If I need to confirm that I'm right about something I will usually go to the internet, but I'm still at the behest of my reading comprehension skills. These are perfectly good, but the more arcane the topic, and the more obtuse the language used in whatever resource I consult, the more likely I am to make a mistake. The resource I choose also has a dramatic impact - e.g. if it's the Daily Mail vs the Encyclopaedia Britannica. I might be able to identify bias, but I also might not, especially if it conforms to my own. We expect a lot of LLMs that we cannot reliably do ourselves.
BluesF
LLMs are just that - Ms, that is to say, models. And trite as it is to say - "all models are wrong, some models are useful". We certainly shouldn't expect LLMs to do things that they cannot do (i.e. possess knowledge), but it's clear that they can do other things surprisingly effectively, particularly providing coding support to developers. Whether they do enough to warrant their energy/other costs remains to be seen.
That's a pretty extreme reaction, it's just a shop.
The stimulant effect of caffeine becomes progressively less effective as you continue to use it regularly and build up a tolerance - if you were to intermittently drink strong coffee you would probably find it having a stronger effect on your ADHD. That said, from my experience the 'rush' you get from drinking caffeine only once in a blue moon is quite unpleasant and the positive effects aren't really worth it... Caffeine imo is best consumed regularly or not at all.
I'm used to UK conservatives. They don't like poor people, I think religion is really a minor issue for most of them though (after all it does generally preach kindness to the poor).
Was not expecting the abrupt pivot into barely relevant bible study.
These just look like normal deep sea creatures. Ever see those videos with the marine biologists talking while they explore the deep with an unmanned submarine? They find weird shit like this all the time.
Damn, never heard this but it's going directly into my vocabulary.
What about that fancy thing that stops table saws when you touch them? Just get one of those and stop the rotors. I'm certain there's no physical reason this wouldn't work.
Name one unattractive dancer. I guarantee no one can do this. They're all hot. All of them.
Worst kept secrets, aka, clever marketing.
Personally I think the "woke" definition of a woman (if there even is one) is much more straightforward than the alternative. This idea that the left "can't define a woman" is absurd projection - the very people who ask this question are the ones who can't define it without having to make 100s of exceptions.