762 karma · joined January 29, 2017
This also happens to be one of the most (holistically) effective techniques irl when “debating” with someone.
This stage seems like a marginal improvement, with the biggest con being that it's more anti-rationalist. Rationalism isn't a panacea, but one needs to master it in order to effectively argue post-modern critical theories.
Competitive debate has always sucked and apparently still sucks.
I just tried this out (have tried some others as well) but currently the voice to text is just too finicky. My Spanish pronunciation is quite good, not great, but often the input just got completely messed up beyond recognition.
It's a miracle I can live in another country than I was born, top income bracket due to a free internet education, effortlessly facetiming my parents whenever I want in amazing quality, learning and talking about all sorts of niche interests without any effort.
I think this is just all so obvious these days that you don't remember how much it used to suck, and that's a real testament to its greatness.
Source article for people that read Dutch: https://13ft.io/www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/maurits...
We will disclose the bare minimum amount that we can get away with, plus things that would end up biting us in the ass if we didn’t.
With wireless-only charging, prevalence and compatibility is more important than exclusivity and using it as an USP which they usually seem to prefer.
It's filled from top to bottom with all sorts of weird arguments and logic that make little sense.
> The problem is we are still under the illusion, as a general principle, that more always adds value. --- He said the pursuit of height made sense in a capitalistic society. “Everything is big,” he said, “the buildings, the businesses,” and went on to explain that parents reflect the mind-set that bigger is better when envisioning their offspring.
The pursuit of height makes sense in any society, being on the taller end of the spectrum (or at least the middle) has enormous advantages for an individual. However, here's the counter-argument from the article:
> “There are some short people who thrive and do phenomenally well and lead fantastic lives, and there are some tall people who are miserable,”
If I had to paste every sketchy paragraph from the article here I'd literally have copy over almost the entire thing, I'm not being hyperbolic here.
Please read the article.
To get more useful answers you can just prefix your questions by: "What is generally regarded as ...".
Overall I'd say they did a pretty good job, the model doesn't have an objective understanding of the world so it can only go by other's observations and opinions. It might be aggressive when it comes to anything that has to do with sex(ism), race(ism), class(ism), etc but it will never tell you that the earth is flat or that the US elections are rigged.
The US has been somewhat open about the immense difficulty of keeping it's nuclear arsenal working reliably and has demonstrated at least some capability to intercept nuclear payloads.
Russian state of it's arsenal is likely going to be worse and the actual ability of the US to intercept is likely going to be better.
How can you honestly be “best of the best” but be dumb enough to ignore remote work. Something you almost actively have to be doing these days and which, for this hypothetical person, has an insane payoff.
This person is supposedly both super smart but at the same time can’t even see the fruit that’s so low-hanging that it’s literally smacking him in the face.
This article lacks so much perspective, Europe is filled with white people having trouble understanding each others English.
It's not that weird that once you start jumping continents this effect simply gets stronger.
I would never be able to find that stuff on my own.