His second term is almost over, you should be asking about his third.
OK. There is a faction of Marxists who hate DEI just as much as the right does, and they claim that they are the only real Marxists because Marxism is specifically and explicitly about economic class warfare.
"I know lots of tall women and quite a few short men, so the science that men are on average taller than women makes no sense to me."
Anecdotes are not data. Human brains are bad at handling statistical information. I'm not saying this article is right or wrong but your intuitive sense of mortality among your personal acquaintances is not a good way to judge it.
Even if he was a big commie, actual marxists hate DEI just as much as the right does. They see identity politics as a distraction from "the real problem" of economic class warfare.
If you put the black ants and the red ants in different jars then you don't have to worry about it.
You know what /22 means, right?
George Carlin said it a long time ago.
Exception: the justice system. A functioning society must have some method for enforcing judgements on non-cooperative bad actors. You can say "private courts" all you want but if they have the power to penalize violations against the violator's will then they're effectively a government body.
Is there any semantic difference between "very creepy" and "creepy AF"?
Nothing happens. Our institutions are irredeemable. Evidence doesn't matter, laws don't matter, nothing matters and nothing changes until people take up arms and take back their power by force.
Let's work on restoring the 2A here before we worry about the mote in our neighbor's eye.
This is the correct answer. ChatGPT does not search the web in realtime when you ask it a question. It only searches its training material. That material was gathered from the internet two years ago. Anything since then doesn't exist as far as the bot knows.
There are other bots that do search in realtime- Bing and Bard for example.
This pretty clearly falls under the Constitutional power to "to regulate Commerce... among the several States", at least as per jurisprudence since Wickard v. Filburn. Mind you, I'd love to see that terrible decision and all of its successors rolled back, but that would be a seismic disruption to our body of law and we're more likely to see an actual revolution than an in-system change of that scope.
"has value" and "makes good money" are two very different statements.
There's no such thing as an absolute "better", only "better" for specific purposes. If you want to make a knife, they're both terrible: steel is better.
What is silver better at than gold? Are there other purposes for which gold is better than silver?
That's really it. Gold is valuable because it meets all the requirements to make a good medium of trade. There's nothing magical about it.
It melts at a relatively low temperature and is softer than most metals, so it can easily be worked into coins or jewelry. It has an attractive color and doesn't tarnish. And it's rare enough to be valuable (water isn't good money because it's too common) but common enough to be used as a currency (platinum isn't good money because it's too rare).
Imagining that gold's history of use as money is based on forgotten magical powers instead of obvious and mundane physical characteristics is like stumbling across some hoofprints and saying "wow, unicorns must be real!" instead of just assuming they're from horses.
Way too many people on both sides of the aisle sloppily use "unconstitutional" to mean "I don't like it".
OK seriously, though, it doesn't say "will wipe out all of humanity in the next five years." It says "unless we stop in the next five years." Since we didn't stop in the five years specified, climate change will wipe out all of humanity someday, perhaps when the sun goes nova in about 3 billion years.
oh no.
So anyway...
A few harmless parasites can actually be a net positive for your immune system.
If you're referring to actual historical usage rather than how you think people ought to speak, this isn't true. The variants "is a genius", "has a genius", and "has genius" were all about equally common until the middle of the 19th century when "is a genius" started to become the preferred form.
Don't think of AI as a consciousness or a mental process. There's nothing there that thinks, nothing to which the idea of "common sense" is even relevant. All these chatbots are doing is running the web search you could have done yourself, taking the top 50 results, averaging them together, and then rephrasing the result into everyday English.
These models don't "learn" the way you and I would, where we gain the ability to recognize new patterns and respond to those patterns with new types of responses. When people talk about chatbots "learning", it just means that they're getting more source data to feed into the same patterns they're already programmed with. You can't teach one to think in new ways- you have to create a new version of the program to do that.
Obvious parody account.
You have no idea who I am or what I'm doing.
"Trying" without any practical sense of how to turn effort into actual success is worse than useless. "We had to do something" is the classic justification when an idiotic plan makes things worse instead of better.
What are you trying to accomplish here? Nobody is going to buy this obviously fake and dumb explanation, especially when the actual etymology is trivially easy to find.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/nickelodeon