No

oh yeah, it’s full shenanigans from the get go.

I would definitely put it on a “should watch” list, i just don’t think it’s a good introduction to most people coming in to anime from a cold start.

FLCL.

And if movies also count “Grave Of the Fireflies”.

ah, i see.

that sentence as a standalone makes no sense, with the context it’s still borderline but i can see how you got there.

that…doesn’t make any sense

If you only see things that conform to your beliefs what need is there for anger ?

It absolutely is a problem, because now that there’s 1000 bug reports where there used to be 10.

Especially in an ecosystem that is paying attention to quality, someone has to review and sort those reports, evaluate them for quality vs close them.

I don’t disagree with the likelihood of them putting that in there.

That argument is weaksauce though, it’s not called murdery murderperson either… And yet…

This is exactly the question i ask “investment advisor” services when they call asking if i want help managing investments.

For you to have a system that works well enough for me to be interested , there’d be no need for you to spend money on call centers full of people ringing up strangers for money, you could take all of that money and invest it in the plan you are trying to sell me.

With “nation” and “rogue” being subject to the perspective(ethical, moral, fiscal etc) of the reporting body.

It’s worth looking but I think you’d be surprised by how much subjective leniency Russia gets depending on the politics of the time.

Edit : I wasnt trying to point out a particular bias, just that the guardian is a tabloid rag with delusions of respectability.

They aren’t totally inept, nor are they a bastion of unbiased premium journalism

They might not be injecting it directly , but they certainly surface it by omission/language choice.

Like saying the UK “commandeered” or “retrieved” a boat or transport , but would say “hijacked”, “stole” or “pirated” for a demographics they didn’t particularly favour at that time.

You should be paying attention to the omissions and the choice of language overall, because that’s where the bias is (usually).

For the compsci industries at least, it’s a productivity boost with moderate to extreme consequences in the middle to long term.

Not that that is a problem for CEO’s and companies that work quarter to quarter, but it will be a problem in 5-10 years when they have no senior workers to pick up/fix the problems that LLM’s introduce.

Or for the particularly dim-witted few in the short term who throw money at a problem they don’t understand while ignoring the people they are paying to advise them, thinking they can remove the “unpredictable” human element.

Unless, of course, the LLM’s improve so much in the runway each company has left, so as to eliminate these issues, i think it unlikely, but we’ll see.

It’s called fingerprinting and yes.

It can be much more insidious than is widely known but the real use comes from the aggregation of data from many sources, over time.

Basically Google’s playbook, across many/all companies.

Did someone claim self defence?

Perhaps the video cuts out before that happened?

Do you have the full vid?

An excellently described personal and subjective approach to determining good vs bad.

Im not saying you’re wrong, im saying your chosen usage and/or perception of metrics isn’t universal.

It’s useful to me, ymmv.

And again, your perception of good is just that, yours.

I happen to agree with the sentiment in general terms but I fully understand it’s just my subjective experience and i wouldn’t use it as a baseline for others.

There are people I would consider “good” , but it’s very contextual, people are mercurial.

People are people, peoples perception of “good” and “bad” is relative and contextual.

Take that in to account when building your expectations of people.

I personally try to take the approach that everyone is inherently selfish and will do what’s best/convenient for themselves (and perhaps the people closest to them).

and i mean selfish as a neutral descriptor, not a derogatory term.

No expectations, no disappointment, but i know that’s not a viable approach for a lot of people (and i’m not immune to the occasional hope of someone pleasantly surprising me).

I’m not saying i don’t expect good things/behaviours to happen, i just try not to build expectations on that eventuality.

It is directly relevant if you’re making a claim against that ability.

since you said you can’t comprehend a post longer than a Tweet or a TikTok video.

It isn’t what they said, at all

No way you can expect anyone to read that after the first sentence.

Is what they actually said.

The person you’re telling the world you aren’t listening to isn’t obligated to take you seriously at all.

Fair.

You’re stating that you’re ignorant — whether or not this is true is not relevant, because you’re presenting that about yourself. Who am I to dispute your claims about you? I don’t know you IRL. I’m just going to take your word that you’re a pigeon on a chessboard — rather than make an intelligent move, you’re just going to knock over all the pieces and make a big show of it.

I’m not the person same person from that reply.

While that imagery is vivid and amusing, it’s a lot to read from a two line reply that doesn’t mention intelligence at all.

That’s an opinion, sure.

There’s a great deal of modern day interactions that are similar in nature, where each person draws their line is up to them.

How people view other peoples line is also up to them.

What i was getting at here wasn’t the subjective morality or ethics, that is an interesting subject though.

It’s entirely possible to have the ability but not the desire to read a wall of text.

Not reading a wall of text doesn’t reasonably preclude someone from disputing a claim unrelated to the content of that text, it’s odd that you’d think that.

Complicit probably isn’t the right word, but to claim there’s no link at all is factually incorrect.

The fact that a proportion of the money in rowling’s hands goes directly into funding anti-trans efforts isn’t in dispute.

She’s the first in line to back up that claim.

If your enjoyment of the media isn’t soured by that, thats your call, everybody does what they can live with.

They have not.

They have provided an IOU from the bank of “trust me bro, this shit’s gonna moon” same as everyone else in that circlejerk of stockmarket destruction.

and the other side has said :
“sure bro, we’ll set you aside a 100 million future rams” *wink*

while announcing this big “sale” they have completed to boost their stock price.

It’s fucking monopoly money to them and it’s going fuck everybody