So John the Baptiste was a nazarite and they don’t cut their hair or trim their beard. Jesus takes over John’s mission, and there no lines from Jesus explaining why his hair is trimmed or excusing hair or anything. I know it’s popular to note there’s no reason to think Jesus was a nazarite but fundamentally I think we can conclude he likely was.
I think they think it empowers them.
Based on the wording I’m guessing it’s a gated community.
When in doubt children remember to ABM
A.Always B. Be M. Moshing
Always be moshing. Go and do likewise children. Go and do likewise.
I recently freed my 8 year old human child from a gap in the couch.
Ohh Jessica Rabbit, I didn’t realize your IP had been reaquired by it’s original author. Is that what brings you to this bankrupt little chat bar?
What got them? AI costs of the fact their business is built entirely on using popular IP characters? I can’t imagine Disney sanctioned a micky mouse chat run by a 3rd party.
I write to you all from the parents table.
It began lame as hell. I was a single man with a married brother who had a young child. I was clearly there to keep them company.
Later, there I was with my own child. At a table of people I didn’t know with children. Next to the goddamn speaker.
Then, I’m happy to report, I was at one of my favorite cousins weddings. I was there with her oldest brother and his child my kids age. And a bunch of other people with kids that age. And it was awesome. Finally.
I submit the best table at a wedding is one that you really fit in with. Whatever commonality that may be.
deleted by creator
Romancing SaGa minstrels song. Made it to the final boss. Eventually made a new save to try again.
Once you beat him once you can carry over some level of progress for successive games. In that same one on maybe my 6th playthrough I had the goal of beating a boss called the jewel beast. Did not accomplish it that run but did on the next playthrough. Beat the game 8 times and never ever could beat what’s called 10 fatestone Saruin.
But that’s fundamentally a flawed argument. It’s more expensive becuase death penalty cases have more rights. Specifically in the US what is called “actual innocence” is not grounds for an appeal to a life sentence but is for a death penalty.
Ideally we would extend that everyone, not save a few bucks and justify continued incarceration of innocent people by noting “hey it’s not a death sentence.”
Imagine the scenario of an innocent person who can’t appeal becuase the trail was fair but would have been freed if they had been sentenced to death, but becuase of the judge or jury’s mercy, they are imprisoned for life.
That has happened here.
Not think a great argument for abolishing the death penalty since it fundamentally is just saying “it is way too expensive to let any prisoners appeal based on being innocent. We could save so much money if didn’t let anyone do that.”
I don’t know. I mean it’s probably a very bad model and these people are just being scammed for a gpt 3.0. I can’t say I like them but I still abhor a scam.
If only. If you google an AI specifically for litigation you’ll get websites selling weekly access for just shy of $500.
I often get very large pleading dumps immediately prior to a hearing instead of at a more logical time and I think it’s the pro se scrounging the money together for another fix of an expensive AI website.
I sincerely doubt it. Judges want to do justice. I think most people would call having a robot judge your pleadings and dismiss merit less claims as dystopian.
Even if it was just “parsing” that’s a layer between you and the judge. Probably also dystopian.
I can only speak to my field, which is legal. Incomprehensible but prolific drivel has always been something the court system has struggled with getting through. That same drivel is now pretty good at pleading generalities but it’s awful at detailing facts.
You can get past the first hurdle in the legal world and unlock a massive and expensive cascade which AI can also effectively navigate for you.
In essence, AI can, very effectively, take an incoherent unreasonable and often mentally unwell litigant and magnify the expense of getting rid of their frivolous claim by over 100.
It’s almost assuredly going to 1. Chock the system. 2. Force massive reallocation of resources in the judiciary 3. Thereby vastly increasing not decreasing legal work. And 4. End up with valid claims being killed in a massive change in judicial attitude toward “clear enough” pleadings as they struggle with an AI influx.
I told her we were going to get married, and all she could talk about was frogs.
She said there’s these hills where it’s hot and rains all the time, and in the rainforests there are these very tall trees and right in the top branches of the trees there are these like great big flowers called . . . bromeliads, I think, and water gets into the flowers and makes little pools and there’s a type of frog that lays eggs in the pools and tadpoles hatch and grow into new frogs and these little frogs live their whole lives in the flowers right at the top of the trees and don’t even know about the ground, and once you know the world is full of things like that, your life is never the same.
I only heard about it when she put out a full nudity and penetration reinacment video. The reactions to that were certainly interesting.
“A murder should only have one victim. When Ratchett kills Daisy Armstrong, a dozen lives are broken, deformed, ended, THEY DEMAND JUSTICE! Of all these wounded souls, we must finally answer — who among them is a killer? Who takes up the knife? The answer is… no single one of you could have done it. Nor any pair. It could have only be done… by all of you."*
Reminds of the move THEM! (1954) about giant ants.