Meyotch is an interesting suffix to a person’s name.

“I am Professor Patrick”

“Professor?”

“Meyotch Professor Patrick!”

/s

100% agree, when I see something I disagree with on its face I try to default to “I probably don’t get something they’re saying, given that it’s only a couple sentences of written word, and a different person’s brain who wrote them”.

It always makes for more useful conversation than defaulting to “ha what a dumbass”

I think downvoters are just expressing disagreement with your opinion. Personally I don’t hate git but I wouldn’t call myself a “fanboy” either - I just don’t think “distributed” has to be mutually exclusive from “decentralized”, which is a term not rigorously defined in this context anyway.

But thanks for informing me about patch theory, that’s something I’ll probably make a small hobby out of studying.

Isn’t decentralized itself since it’s not a platform

I think I see your definition of “decentralized” a little better now, if you only want to apply it to platforms.

I think your definition may be too strict, and that “decentralized” and “distributed don’t have to be mutually exclusive, but eh, that’s just my take.

What version control software in particular do you find better than git?

Your point about users often managing git projects via centralization is taken and valid. I was just pointing out that you don’t have to use git that way - different clones can separately develop their own features - so the earlier claim someone made that “git isn’t decentralized” is still wrong, imo.

Git itself isn’t decentralized is about people copying it and sometimes mirroring it.

Not sure what you mean. My understanding is that git itself is decentralized insofar as each clone can develop its own history without ever needing to push to the origin, but that what OP is referring to is actually the “distributed” nature of git, where i.e. it’s easy to copy the entire history of an instance.

Yeah , on top of how ad-infested and vague the article is and on top of the discussion I’ve seen about this paper elsewhere, it looks like at least one of the authors, Adrian David Cheok, doesn’t have any physics training according to his ORCID bio or his his wikipedia page, but has dabbled in AI according to the latter.

I wouldn’t be surprised if this is just some AI schlock.

deleted by creator

Dude, I suggested the earth was shaped like a velociraptor.

No, I didn’t miss the joke

Edit: Did YOU miss MY incredibly obvious joke? xD

Oh fucking christ, a flat-earther. You people are even worse than the fucking round-earther scum on this platform.

I swear you people will never accept a velociraptor-shaped earth, prolly cuz your brains just aren’t big enough to process the geometry.

Edit: I really hoped the /s would not be necessary…

Considering that this is an xkcd comic, I think it’s fair to suggest that most people who see this and know where it’s from will recognize that it’s mostly a joke.

The spirit of the comic is still pretty nice, though. I think that’s what really matters.

Are they? A little odd for a neo-Nazi…

Could you explain this to me? Not trying to defend Shapiro or anything, and not saying a person of Jewish descent can’t be a Neo-Nazi, but from what I know of Shapiro he seems pretty devoutly Jewish, so I don’t really get labelling him as a Neo-Nazi.

Putting aside that your first “if” statement is only believed by religious extremists, if sex is consenting to making a person, then does that mean that those who are raped are also “consenting”?

Ah, a comrade of the fellowship. I, too, am a person with many people of color.

The only question I’d have is whether the salary that was agreed upon for the prosecutor was established before the relationship, if she even had any say in it at all. Otherwise it might be fair to argue she unfairly bumped his pay, meaning some taxpayer money unfairly went to his pocket.

Not that I really care all that much. Even if the relationship started before she says it did, and even if some of his $650,000 payment was unjustly given (not that I believe all of that)…aren’t we having a trial about obstruction of the democratic process here?

It’s more that this whole thing is ridiculous, given the stakes of the trial, than it being actually upsetting.

I think that’s all very reasonable and well-put. That said, I wanna give a little push-back, mainly bc superdelegates.

Sanders lost overwhelmingly on superdelegates, and the difference in number of delegates awarded to each candidate would have been less than half as big if superdelegates weren’t considered (IMO superdelegates were and are stupid).

Also, I recall that for most of the primary, Sanders was usually leading in pledged delegates, but was always behind on total number of delegates due to superdelegates.

I think Hillary got a large upswing of normal voters by the end of the primary bc she was in the lead, voters saw the writing on the wall, and they wanted to make her victory decisive. But I think voting for Bernie would’ve been more palatable if he was the one who constantly looked to be in the lead.

Of course, that’s just speculation. And given that Sanders only got 43.2% of the popular vote (though tbf that doesn’t include lowa/Maine/Nevada/North Dakota/Washington/Wyoming [source] )…yeah, it’s reasonable to say we needed more change than just the DNC stepping back.

I think you’re really misinterpreting OP’s argument. When he says the Democratic Party chose Bernie, I don’t think he’s saying “democrats as a whole” chose Bernie, but that the higher-ups in charge of the DNC chose Bernie, and that he lost the primary largely because of that minority.

That’s fair. I don’t think he was 100% joking either, I just don’t think he was absolutely convinced of the lab leak theory.

The way I see it: either it was a) just a bit, or b) a bit that was fueled by his frustration that the lab leak theory hasn’t been outright disproven (though I think him saying it’s “more than likely” would still be irresponsible), or c) him being serious and trying to make a joke out of it, or d) none of the above.

I think c) is totally worthy of criticism. Just not as much so under a) or b).

I’m still interested in a source of that not being the only time he defended the lab leak theory.

Source on him talking about this throughout the pandemic? Only thing I’m aware of is him going on Colbert’s show post-lockdown.

On that occasion, to some extent, I’m pretty sure he was just joking, given that he gives his entire speech in a comedic tone and doesn’t fight Colbert back on mostly anything he replies with.

Setting aside whether or not you were banned from reddit for legitimate reasons:

I think this thread, funnily enough, demonstrates that feedback from a community of actual people who might care about a subject is AT LEAST as good as ChatGPT.

Across 2 separate comments you were given both a succinct explanation for why the problem exists, and an acceptable solution for you. And it took way fewer words than all of what you show of the ChatGPT output, which AFAICT gave you neither, at least not in all the text of your screenshot.