I won’t argue with you there.

My entire point for my comment from earlier is that I don’t know what a “healthy weight” is for that person. I also won’t assume that “under 200lbs” is either above, or below, that amount.

I didn’t make any assumptions about it. My comment being “if it makes you happy?” Is more of a question of, if being under that weight is bringing you happiness. Because I will neither speculate, nor assume, what a healthy body weight is for that person, and I’m not going to ask for their private medical information on what a healthy weight is, so my only hope is that they’re happy about the change.

I probably could have said it better, but it would not have been as terse.

I find that the more terse I can be, the better my comments tend to do. It would seem that most people don’t want to read an entire encyclopedia for an answer to a relatively basic question. The issue I have is that, when I include context, I want to make as few assumptions about the reader as I can. About what they know or don’t know, or if they are familiar with medical terms or caught up in colloquialisms. Clarifying each point to the extent I need to in order to accommodate for those assumptions I am not making, is a verbose task.

Gas stoves have a place, and I’m not about to take away anyone’s choice on the matter. With all that being said, to the title of this article, I say “duh”… Honestly, who thought that cooking using an open flame inside your home was somehow safer than the alternative?

I use electric, I’ve pretty much always used electric. I will continue to use some form of electric stove. I want to have complete control over the heat going into my cookware, and while it may not be as flashy or as quick to use electric, I can’t see any situation where electric would not be safer.

Possibly.

I wasn’t about to jump to that conclusion.

People just focus so much on a number on a scale, when the focus should be on being healthy. Sometimes weight is a part of that, sometimes not.

I’ve met people that couldn’t weigh more than 100lbs soaking wet, yet they’re unhealthy to high hell, and frequently paying the (medical) price for that. Meanwhile, I’ve known people who can’t, by any means, get below 200lbs and they’re in near perfect health.

Weight does not equal health.

Being healthy doesn’t require that you are a particular weight.

“when I’m wrong, I say I’m wrong” … This is a statement of intent. That you will say you’re wrong, when you are wrong…

This is not an admission of fault. This is not saying “I am wrong”.

Way to dance around saying the one thing that actually matters in this whole damn thing… And… You’re sorry? I don’t want your sorry. What will your sorry do for everyone fucked over by the rapist convict you put in the Whitehouse?

Fuck you. I hope the leopards eat the rest of you too.

I can’t stop laughing about it, though I hope that Kitty was able to get back to a more typical size.

I understand your reasoning, but please God no.

Weight thing: meh, if it makes you happy?

Glucose thing: fuck yeah dude.

Jesus. I’ve administrated a bunch of Adobe accounts in various ways and it’s not always straight forward to tell what licenses are in use and by whom. These pencil necked fucktards thought they somehow knew better than the government IT guys, what’s in use and what isn’t…

Incredible.

In any case, I’m glad their eating their own chow. They made this bed and now hopefully, they’re about to get fucked in it.

I somehow doubt it, but I can dream Harold.

Same as it ever was.

Ontarian here. Every time I hear of a USA manufacturer going under because Canada stopped buying their stuff, I find myself smiling.

To the Americans in the crowd that don’t agree with the child in charge, do something about it. Please. There’s nothing I want more than to stop worrying about how much it will cost to ship something over the border.

Most of you are cool, except Jeff, fuck that guy. You know what you did.

Why all the construction? Is he building 11 ballrooms?

I think this guy is just trying to avoid getting raided by ICE.

I don’t hate all the new shows. They have merit, but they basically cheated. They can omit, change, discard, ignore, or otherwise leave out any and all lore because of the universe reset that happened with the new trek. It gave them a clean slate so that they would have the creative freedom to do whatever they wanted.

Weighing it against other sci-fi shows in a similar vein, the new series of shows/movies holds up for the most part, against Star wars, and shows like the Orville. But as star trek, I think they did a disservice to the fans by rebooting it in the way that they did. All the existing universe and lore built by TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager, and all the movies up to that point, is all basically voided. Where you would know that, if they introduce worf, for example, even as a young warrior, you would know what he will become if the canon wasn’t voided. Now? They can use the characters and come up with any reason for them to make a different choice, dramatically changing the outcomes.

But, if you judge it as a separate thing, loosely based on trek, it’s not bad.

I’ve never seen something useful come out of an LLM when it comes to tech support.

Early TNG was a bit rough. They had the right people, but some of the plot lines were strange an in some cases quite prejudiced.

Around season 3 they got their stride going.

Not every episode of season 1 is good. They were trying stuff and seeing what resonated with a new generation of trek fans.

I’m not saying anyone should skip it, but there are episodes that make me question why they even thought it was a good idea to do that.

Machine learning for OCR makes a ton of sense. Human writing is highly dynamic, especially handwriting. It makes sense that OCR would benefit from a trained model for recognising words.

As someone who works in a knowledge industry, anyone relying on AI for their workload will end up with more errors than solutions. IT requires a high degree of accuracy in the information you handle that gets you to a solution. Out of everything you can say about AI, you can’t say that it’s highly accurate.

Any time I’ve given a technical question to copilot or chat GPT, I usually get nonsense back. It will not help me solve any of the issues I need to solve as a part of my job.

I understand how the current version of “AI” works, and from that knowledge, I know that for any meaningful task I face with even a small amount of complexity, these so-called “AI” bots can’t possibly have any relevant answers. Most of the time I can’t find relevant answers on the Internet by trying. Sometimes I only get adjacent information that helps lead me to the unique solution I need to implement.

“AI” in IT support actually makes things go slower and cause more issues and frustration than actual tangible help with anything that needs to be done. You end up going down rabbit holes of misinformation, wasting hours of time trying to make an ineffective “solution” work, just because some “AI” chatbot sent you on a wild goose chase.

I’m assuming that the original intent was that it’s “non-negotiable” in the sense that it will never be allowed, but the term “non-negotiable” usually means the opposite, that it must happen…

So they’re stupid?

Uhh. Just chiming in here as someone that does business to business IT support… Most of the NPC office workers are almost demanding access to “AI” stuff.

I’m not saying this will turn out well, in fact, I think it will probably end poorly, but I’m not on charge around here. There’s a nontrivial outcry for “AI” tools in business.

There’s profit happening with it right now. Maybe not enough to offset costs yet, but there’s a market for these things in the mindless office drone space.

To be absolutely clear, I think it’s an idiotic thing to have/use, especially for any work in IT, but here we are. I have middle managers quoting chat GPT as if it’s proof that what they want, can be done. I’ve been forwarded complete instructions to use fictional control panels and fictional controls to do a thing, when it’s not possible for that thing to be done.

“AI” is a corporate yes-man in the worst ways possible. Not only are they agreeing that something can be done, even if it’s not possible, but it’s providing real enough looking directions that it seems like what it’s proposing can be done, is actually possible and reasonable. I once asked copilot how to drive to the moon and it told me I’d run out of gas. While I would definitely run out of gas trying to get to the moon by car, when I’m done trying and I’ve run out of gas, I wouldn’t be any closer to the moon than I usually am.

The thing is an idiot on wheels at the best of times, and a blatant liar the rest of the time. I don’t know how people can justify using it in business when a mistake can lead to legal action, and possibly a very large settlement. It’s short sighted and it’s not worth the time nor effort involved in the whole endeavor.

If I recall correctly, it was sons of anarchy?

It’s been a while. Many years.