4,105 karma · joined March 1, 2013
“Double lock” > “clasp” > “grab” > “dislodge”
It’s just a quick example, but I think it follows their “rough synonym“ style connections, and it’s not less reasonable than the examples.
To me, it feels like this project is kind of hampered by not having a rigorous definition of what is allowable, and then mixing in the sort of random effects of an LLM
Our laws ban: sector unionization, sympathy and general strikes, and secondary boycotts.
On top of that, we have a very narrow definition of employee, an employers can permanently replace striking workers. The right to strike can even be taken away with a mandated cooling off period.
Even having one of those factors can hamstring unionization in a country, so they’re pretty much never going to “come back with a vengance” here
I’m genuinely curious what you are getting out of it
Like with marginal users?
It’s really shocking to see an institution in our country take action that is not in its immediate financial best interest (assuming this letter translates to an action)
Without seeing the evidence this feels like a cynical attempt to make political hay out of a tragedy.
The person whose AI companion forms their most important social connection is already not doing well psychologically. And from what I’ve seen, they only offer salubrious advice.
Depending on your views, the same childrearing experience can be noble and beautiful, or senseless and ugly.
It seems to be a relatively new development that theres cultural support for interpreting childrearing as horrible.
This review was about testing supplementation of vitamin D, what you posted is mostly about correlation between serum levels and health outcomes, and those levels are largely about non-supplemented “natural” vitamin d.
The distinction is important because science has been trying to figure out whether vitamin d itself has the benefits, or if it is a marker for a larger salubrious process.
It would not require a partnership to buy stuff outside the country
They’re what firefighters use.
People -only!- draw conclusions based on personal experience. At best you have personal experience with truly objective evidence gathered in a statistically valid manner.
But that only happens in a few vanishingly rare circumstances here on earth. And wherever it happens, people are driven to subvert the evidence gathering process.
Often “working against your instincts” to be more rational only means more time spent choosing which unreliable evidence to concoct a belief from.
A software engineer can (temporarily) get it working after hours of diagnosis.
Compare that to the switch.