joe

I'm pretty sure Tasker can make non-dismissible notifications.

Though, if a notification will actually stop you from drunk dialing, you could always change your wallpaper to something like "Don't drunk dial".

But isn't the S a lower powered device? Or am I mistaken?

Are you saying that traditional food delivery drivers get trained specifically not to hit on people when they deliver food? I don't have any data but I feel like that's not really a thing. Maybe my concept of the training a food delivery driver gets is way off the mark?

I'm also pretty sure that it's easier to give a bad review that others will see via one of these food delivery apps than it is if you go directly to the business.

I think we all agree that this is inappropriate and should not be happening, I just don't see how it doesn't apply at least equally to traditional delivery drivers.

Yeah I read that but I don't have the knowledge to say "what a rookie mistake" or "in hindsight that was a bad idea". I take it, it's the former?

I'm not a cybersecurity expert. Did they make a foolish decision that would warrant a lack of trust, or were they just unlucky?

It's not a bad heuristic to predict Trump. From staring directly at a solar eclipse to continuing to defame a person immediately after losing a defamation case about that person, Trump will always seemingly take the worst possible action in any given scenario.

I think (and am deeply saddened by it) that many people would go just for the proximity to Trump, not because they care one way or the other about Giuliani.

I can't say I fully understand how LLMs work (can't anyone??) but I know a little and your comment doesn't seem to understand how they use training data. They don't use their training data to "memorize" sentences, they use it as an example (among billions) of how language works. It's still just an analogy, but it really is pretty close to LLMs "learning" a language by seeing it used over and over. Keeping in mind that we're still in an analogy, it isn't considered "derivative" when someone learns a language from examples of that language and then goes on to write a poem in that language.

Copyright doesn't even apply, except perhaps on extremely fringe cases. If a journalist put their article up online for general consumption, then it doesn't violate copyright to use that work as a way to train a LLM on what the language looks like when used properly. There is no aspect of copyright law that covers this, but I don't see why it would be any different than the human equivalent. Would you really back up the NYT if they claimed that using their articles to learn English was in violation of their copyright? Do people need to attribute where they learned a new word or strengthened their understanding of a language if they answer a question using that word? Does that even make sense?

Here is a link to a high level primer to help understand how LLMs work: https://www.understandingai.org/p/large-language-models-explained-with

My first playthrough was the same thing, but I think it's because I picked her up so late in Act 1. I have no actual data but I think that if you don't have a certain level of approval with her when you

spoiler about Karlach's side quest

have her heart tuned the first time

you miss out on romancing her for the rest of the game. For my playthrough, I basically picked her up, and started progressing through her quest immediately, and already that the item needed to finish her act 1 storyline; I think that's what locked me out. Again, I'm just speculating, though.

While it doesn't automatically mean that Giuliani sees the money, Trump is apparently having a fundraiser dinner for him. So maybe he does have something on Trump, still.

This is a pretty sophomoric take. Cows can't exert that kind of impact on the world; it's not like they could but are just wise enough not to.

Humans are a threat to the world because we're more intelligent.

I might be off base, but your comment has the feel of a "gotcha!". Yeah, America certainly qualifies.

Edit: Perhaps worth pointing out that I'm not the first person you replied to.