2,575 karma · joined February 11, 2022
If your pastry shop had 40 billion donuts, and you claim that 10 billion of those donuts are available for sale immediately, do you close your shop when you lose 3.3 billion of them, leaving you with only 6.7 billion donuts that are still sitting there?
It seems like they’re simply forcing people to hold USDC, full stop, and are blaming banks for their decision to do so.
How is pausing withdrawals not blatant currency manipulation? If I had USDC and lost all faith in it yesterday, shouldn’t I be allowed to cash out today?
Also, if they’ve got many billions in cash, why would losing access to a sliver of it justify shutting down withdrawals?
“Trust us, it’s worth a dollar! Or don’t trust us! It doesn’t matter because you don’t have any choice but to hold USDC until we deem it advantageous to us to allow you to exchange them for real money!”
Last I checked it’s a racemic mixture, so it’ll be 50/50 levo/dextro.
Fun fact! Certain SKUs of Vicks inhalers use levomethamphetamine as a very effective decongestant. It’s literally methamphetamine! Just not the kind that can get you even remotely high.
I am unfamiliar with this bank or this form.
I think we’re agreeing here?
Language models of the size of SD produce literally useless output. SD can produce kind of fun output that people can make use of sometimes?
When it comes to text, people don’t find “cats are an animal with four tails” an amusing statement in the same way that they do a drawing of one. The standard of acceptability is way higher.
Should a tear occur such that the bread around a hot dog separates into two discrete pieces, it is then a sandwich. Therefore a hot dog is a potential sandwich in the same way that an egg is a potential chicken.
I’ve heard people say that, but as somebody that switched schools in California a lot in high school, public schools in nicer neighborhoods were categorically always much, much, MUCH nicer.
Like “had an on-site computing museum and shared latin and ancient greek teachers with the nearby UC campus” and “had a couple decade-old pcs for a desktop publishing class taught from a binder by the PE teacher” different.
This hits the nail on the head for me.
I mostly enjoyed the books as a kid, but didn’t really maintain being a Harry Potter “fan” into adulthood. Out of the dozen or so “hardcore” millennial nerds that I know really well, there’s exactly one person that I think would attempt to read something like that, and based on the reviews I’ve read, I would bet that she would struggle to finish it, if at all.
There is a somewhat interestingly vocal group of internet adults that insist that the default mode for nerds in their 30s is to be Harry Potter super fans, some of whom lapse. Like we were all raised Catholic and some stray.
I was a big fan of Animorphs at that age too, but you won’t see me going around reading or writing Hork-Bajir/Andalite fanfic. Because I enjoyed it as a kid and then went on to read other books.
Congrats on not answering my question at all, in any fashion. Condolences on not baiting anyone into a pointless argument about CEOs or whatever, it was just too far a stretch to get from your outrage to anything remotely on-topic here.
I’ve now asked you in multiple ways what you meant by that phrasing!
edit: I’ll make it even easier, since you don’t seem to want to answer that question. How about this:
What was the topic of these sentences?
> If a pastor uses the church pulpit to convince their flock to vote a specific way, that's okay from your definition. If a well-loved ceo at a company spontaneously meets with the employees in the breakroom, over their free coffee and free lunch, and decides to use that pulpit to convince people to act a certain way politically, that's okay from your definition. There is a saying: "What's good for the goose is good for the gander"
To clarify what I mean by “what is the topic”, I mean
1. What was your purpose in bringing up your example of a well-loved ceo when nobody else had? What were you trying to illustrate?
2. If you weren’t commenting on somebody’s perceived moral statement, did you share the goose and gander quote as a completely unrelated fun fact for everyone to enjoy?
Was it some sort of fun little moral lesson unrelated to the rest of the content of your post, like the text on a popsicle stick or Snapple cap?
Learn something new every day!
If I were to say “The catholic church has had a lot of influence over architecture decisions”, would your response be “I see that you hate Frank Lloyd Wright”?
Does describing how a plane flies mean that I like fighter jets?
Can you point to where GP made a value judgment about what is and isn’t “okay” in their post? It kind of seems like you’re arguing against something that nobody said.
I hope somebody makes a Streets of SimCity-style exploration/battle game from this.
That game was so much fun!
https://github.com/hamsolo474/stable-diffusion-gimp-plugin
https://github.com/blueturtleai/gimp-stable-diffusion/tree/m...
ROFLMAO
This is the funniest anti-AI sentence I’ve read so far.
This is not really true. You tried to center your conclusion that your math was better than the author’s math while distracting from the topic of rendering text properly.
This thread has been about you insisting that people listen to your math and not discuss rendering text properly. lol this thread has been about how clever you are, _not_ rendering text properly.
Can you elaborate on this “obsession”? Aren’t a lot of AI things made/implemented by for-profit companies? Google, Meta, Midjourney, etc?
Has anybody done a poll and asked teens what they’re sad about?
It’s really quite funny to see somebody take Matt Yglesias seriously. The self-described “professional take-haver” looked at two graphs, nodded his head and wrote down “this is causation”, and he’s talking about people having progressive politics!
If I were to write an article about how I think [person a] could possibly be right or wrong about [topic x] for understandably valid reasons in either direction, I wouldn’t title it “No, [opinion of person a on topic x] is wrong” because that would be stupid.