Weren’t the penguins from a zoo in the US though? It’s been a while since I saw the film.
Weren’t the penguins from a zoo in the US though? It’s been a while since I saw the film.
I guess it adds up to 12 searches worth of environmental impact with chatgpt+Google (10 searches worth from chatgpt, 2 from Google)
When I use Google alone it’s often the same as that if not more. Sometimes it’s less if I already know the subject matter, but in those scenarios I would usually give just Google a go first anyway.
Basically chatgpt often either gives me the answer or a much better starting place for what to Google.
My scenario is that I use chatgpt to get context and terminology in the area I’m researching.
I then know how to do more specific Google searches (only 1/2).
I think his stepdaughter, with her boyfriend, dropped off his son for the son’s weekend visit with him (him being the commenter, the father).
It reads like his son was visiting his stepdaughter’s boyfriend. Maybe it is that, but it’d be odd.
I’m not sure what point you’re making.
The environmental impact is interesting, if an AI search being as environmentally impactful as 10 Google searches is true.
I don’t know about you, but it often takes a number of Google searches for me to find the right information, whereas with AI and Google combined I usually get the info I need in 1/2 Google searches.
That means that, based on my personal experience, AI is probably more environmentally efficient at getting me the correct info than google search alone.
Edit: gotta love downvoters that give no discussion. I’m happy to re-evaluate the above but if nobody is rebuking it then all I can assume is that downvoters are ‘AI BAD’ folks who don’t have any intelligent input.
I can see where they’re coming from, sure. But assuming something with no proof doesn’t make any sense, to me at least.
I just found it such an odd thing to make an assumption over.
So this boils down to, these products are more expensive now that sanctions are in place, because middlemen are needed to circumvent the sanctions.
That translates to sanctions working exactly as intended right? It doesn’t matter if they still get the product as long as it’s costing them a lot more than it would before sanctions.
Why? The worlds richest people aren’t royal, so why would the UKs richest person need to be?
It’s annoyingly fairly priced. I’m fairly sure they’re doing this at a loss to put competitors in the music streaming services out of business so they can hack up the price.
Standard Google/TV streaming service practice.
Many of the recent protests about climate change have been less direct and more about stirring up controversy to force the public to actually think about their decisions.
My hat off to them as so far this style of protest has been working and has resulted in many of us pushing for better climate control.
You’re right this isn’t going to stop companies, but even if you disagreed with them it puts climate change in your conscious mind. Even if that simply means you’ll try to make slightly more climate friendly decisions moving forwards, that’s a win.
Personally I don’t know if I agree with the technique, but I do feel like it has been working in terms of making people discuss this topic more.
I’d argue that it’s naive to think we can ever think non-individually as a species. Maybe I’ve just become cynical as I’ve aged and experienced though, not to say you haven’t also experienced - more that, if you have, your experiences have clearly been very different to my own.
Lol yeah.
Good luck spending time and money investing in something that you know will have zero legal protection as ‘yours’ after you go to market.
I personally feel that a copyright does give confidence to product developers to actually develop products. If they felt they weren’t going to get anything for their work they just wouldn’t bother and our tech advancement would stall significantly.
This reminds me of some graffiti I saw today that said “Be nice, we’re all gonna die” XD
I feel like this describes pretty much every western society since we moved beyond tribalism.
Sounds like leadership that can’t lead and is simply trying to cater for internal needs while maintaining some form of power.
“Yes Mr right wing, we’ll kill them all”
" Yes Mr left wing we’ll agree to a ceasefire"
I’m interested in the idea of selection adaptation and motorised vehicles, however I think selective adaptation takes much much much longer than motorised vehicles have been with us so far. We’re talking hundreds of years for selective adaptation to take affairs.
I could be wrong about that though.
The more likely adaptation reason currently is that we like over eating. Food used to be scarce, and when it was available you ate as much as you could or you died. The survivors of that scenario are the ones that made us, and as such we love eating lots when it’s there.
I think our fascination with sweet foods makes sense from this perspective also. Our ancestors exposure to sweet foods were mostly fruit. Fruit would have improved their immune system significantly. Unfortunately we’ve since began mass producing sugar which doesn’t offer the same benefits, but our bodies are still set up to love that sweet taste.
I’m rambling a bit, but there you go.
I reckon if he just turned it around and became a stand up guy, helping immigrants settle peacefully, becoming a role model for the world stage from a moral standpoint, he’d lose all those supporters.
It’d be amazing to watch that character arc too.
Yeah, as others have said here. My point was you don’t need to understand why. You just need to understand that it’s what makes that person feel complete and not pigeon hole them with everybody else.
Who’s to say that the person that labels as a woman and a father is being offended? By assuming this person will be offended you’re labelling their personal feelings of who they are in to a stereotype.
My interpretation of your comment suggests it sounds like you’re worried about offending. I think the best position is to be okay with the idea that you’re going to offend some people sometimes. If you do, you apologize and explain that you didn’t realise that what you were saying may be interpreted that way, and move on. If they want to push it further than that, then they’re being difficult (just because somebody is in a minority, doesn’t mean they’re “right”). Everyone needs to realise that we’re not actually all out to get one another, and just let these little misunderstandings go.
Story time.
A good example of this, in a different setting, is that I was at a BBQ a few weeks ago. A guy I know, somewhere between acquaintance and friend, said I can drink his beers from his cooler because mine were in the fridge inaide. As I drank more, I totally took advantage of this (inhibitions lowered and all that) and drank a load of his beers. The week after when I saw him again I said “sorry man, I think I drank all your beers last week”. He said “no worries. All good”. And we moved on.
We do stuff that offends others all the time, and others do it to us. We just need to apologise when we realise and move on.
True, depending on the quality of the wiki/forum. I would then also often find myself defaulting back to Google to find the right page on the wiki/forum, just with the name of the forum included to narrow down my search.
That or I’d never find the exact bit of info I need because it’s buried in hours worth of reading on the wiki.