El Barto

lol true!

That’s just I.

Aaah, I see it now.

You’re implying that he raped somebody. You know, like Trump.

No, no. I implied that he had consensual sex with somebody. And I somehow thought that you thought that was scandalous.

But I see what you mean.

Have a good night, sir.

Daddy, chill.

I stand corrected.

I thought tariffs were on imports only. Can there be export tariffs? Well, TIL.

And lol no. You can’t say that Trump is in power because of me. And so for assuming that much, I’ll say that this is why Trump won - because of pointless emotional reactions that cause division, like yours. So, let’s say we’re even.

What the fuck are you trying to say?

Because clearly we are thinking about two different things.

That’s not how tariffs work.

The chinese MAGA hats are going from China to the U.S., not the other way around.

Edit: That, it turns out, is how tariffs work as well. TIL.

Concerned? In Thailand?

That’s like clutching your pearls over someone with pants half down in Las Vegas or Amsterdam.

Misdirected social justice. That’s like defending billionaires.

Hardcore Catholics are hardcore.

Having said that, as someone who grew up Catholic, let me tell you FUCK THE POPE AND THE VATICAN AS A WHOLE!

Soooo… are all those Americans and Europeans that call themselves expats, uh, immigrants?

Me before becoming a U.S. citizen. “I find both parties worth studying. Very interesting from a foreigner’s point of view”.

Me after, and only after becoming a U.S. citizen: “FUCK THE REPUBLICANS, THEY SUCK ARMPITS!!!”

Downvoters don’t understand irony.

I actually love this picture. Kings don’t need to stick to whatever us plebs think of fashion. What’s the context of this picture?

I know this is a joke, but to be fair, a good chunk of Americans are highly educated. It’s just that the morons are more motivated to vote (and yes, I see the irony of not voting as a moronic thing to do.)

Understood. And yeah, language is definitely an interesting topic. “Why do you say ‘So be it’ instead of ‘So is it’?” Most people will say “I don’t know… all I know if that it sounds correct.” Someone will say “it’s because it’s a preterite preposition past imperfect incantation tense used with an composition participle around-the-clock flush adverb, so clearly you must use the subjunctive in this case.” But that’s after studying it years later.

That’s why I said that the avatar should be the same for all court cases. Let’s say Microsoft Office Clippy, though it could have been a stick-man or Bob Ross.

The avatar is an unnecessary distraction. Can the video be just audio? Use that. Can the video be audio and text? Use that.

Plus if plaintiffs and defendants can sometimes get away with certain outcomes because of what they look like (this has been studied and observed), imagine criminals using cute little teens that happen to look like the judges’ kids to argue the case.

I’d say a compromise would be that the avatar be the same for all court cases; chosen by the court system. I’d be sort of okay with this.

And the whole AI destroying the planet is a topic for another moment.

You’re comparing two different things.

Of course I can reflect on how I came with a math result.

“Wait, how did you come up with 4 when I asked you 2+2?”

You can confidently say: “well, my teacher said it once and I’m just parroting it.” Or “I pictured two fingers in my mind, then pictured two more fingers and then I counted them.” Or “I actually thought that I’d say some random number, came up with 4 because it’s my favorite digit, said it and it was pure coincidence that it was correct!”

Whereas it doesn’t seem like Claude can’t do this.

Of course, you could ask me “what’s the physical/chemical process your neurons follow for you to form those four fingers you picture in your mind?” And I would tell you I don’t know. But again, that’s a different thing.

Don’t worry. That article was awful and the reporter is ignorant of how statistics work.

First of all, it’s not all men. It’s “all Australian men.” And second of all, it’s not 1 in 6. It’s probably more like 1 in 20. Still a high number, but not as high as the reporter makes it out to be.

The reporter ignored that the data can overlap.

Sort of like saying:

Pete would never let anyone slap him. Joe says he is willing to be slapped for $1000. He would also do it for $500. He would also do it for $200. Based on the above, THREE men out of four would be willing to be slapped for $1000 or less!!!

Well thanks. TIL.

Having said that, “mentioning” is not inventing.

It would be cool if we had fat burning pizza. There you have it. I mentioned it first, so I invented it.