It absolutely does introduce errors.

Wikipedia typically summarizes the cited source. LLMs don’t use the language in the source to write a summary. It comes up with its own language. LLM cited text usually gets removed for uncited claims because the claims just aren’t in the reliable source.

I’m not sure if I completely follow.

Bill Clinton passed a law defining marriage between a man and a woman. And you are saying this is an example of progress made by a centrist candidate. Isn’t this the law doing the opposite, here?

And you are saying that Gavin Newsom, who has spoken out against trans rights, can do something similar? Like assuming he does the same thing, like pass a “Defense of gender” bill to allow other states to not recognize gender transitions.

Are you saying he will bring progress this way?

I think the argument is that voting for status quo candidates aren’t actually getting us those things, either. And any small incremental gains are quickly reverted the next time republicans are in power.

These are athletes in top condition. There are probably less STDs than the general population.

Well… I think she would be upset if we spent all our money this way.

My kids played Occulus for a good while. Played gorilla tag then bone something. They kind of got bored of it and now it just sits on a shelf.

Pennsylvania totally isn’t haunted, tho, they say. Sure it isn’t.

Praise be to unions

Me in the back: “It’s called management.”

Bitcoin operates the same as NFTs. Similar to an NFT, a bitcoin alone doesn’t have any value on it’s own. Someone made lots of money both on NFTs and bitcoin by selling it to someone else for more money than they paid for it.

It’s really no different.

BTC would work here, too.

Somewhat unrelated to the topic, but I wonder how many younger people can recognize book encyclopedias.

After working at a few unsuccessful startup companies, it doesn’t sound THAT bad.

The point of the paragraph is to question if special treatment really is a bad thing.

If we want to help the most number of people, services won’t be equal between genders and special treatment may be the best solution for that. As a more extreme example, giving women access to pregnancy care services and birth control is something that women will get a special treatment for in comparison to men. In order to help the most number of people, services will be imbalanced.

What feels like imbalance or injustice may actually be the most beneficial to society.

Literally noone is against that, feminists included.

Protip: Take a video of your family watching the fireworks, not only the fireworks.

Aliens could mean a lot of things… Alien contact, not really. Finding aliens before humans go extinct… possible.

I feel like this is a good argument for meninism, but it’s not really a good reason to be against feminism. I don’t think you can house women and men together in the same shelter because of trauma from their abuser. If the man can just enter the same shelter that the woman went to to try to get away from him it defeats the purpose of the women’s shelter in the first place.

In other words, instead of being against women wanting special treatment like domestic abuse shelters, wouldn’t it be better to be in support of additional shelters, inclusive of men, instead? Saying women don’t deserve “special treatment” is saying that special treatment should be eliminated, not extended to more genders.

Edit: Like I don’t think true equity should be the goal for cases like domestic abuse, just because it’s a numbers game. Domestic abuse happens a lot more often to women than to men. The goal should be to help anyone who needs it, even it isn’t equal between genders.

When it comes to special treatment and not equality, I’m actually okay with some of it. Like women’s abuse shelters, pregnancy support, workplace harassment prevention, reproductive health care access, and domestic violence protections aren’t really bad in my opinion. Is there one you want to get rid of?

How come? It’s not sexism to want equal rights.