Then I believe you’re an enabler and should probably rethink what you’re willing to tolerate
Do you really think I haven’t considered your idea? It is utterly unconvincing. Dementia and drunkenness are not the same thing, and I’d say if a person can’t remember doing something heinous, that is not a compelling reason either.
I did not miss your point. I thought it was entirely unconvincing. The other person is the same person just with the disadvantage of being fucked up.
Edit. Furthermore, I believe that the drunk self is just an amplified version of the sober self. My theory is that if your drunk self is capable of doing bad, so is your sober self.
That’s just about the least convincing take I’ve ever heard. You can absolutely punish the person who made the decision to impair themselves beyond the ability to make rational decisions. They came from the same decision to get drunk by the sober person. A person who has a propensity to get drunk and drive is a danger to everyone and needs to be dealt with accordingly.
Yes, I agree people are allowed to do absolutely idiotic things without consequences.
Drinking is a personal choice. Getting drunk affects more than yourself.
If only there was something to do besides getting drunk. Or if only there was a way to stop drinking before you get hammered.
Car dependent infrastructure has very little to do with people making bad decisions. Getting drunk shouldn’t be a given.
I would hate to see your code if you think ChatGPT’s code works great. I’m guessing you’ve never asked it do anything complex.
It’s ok to admit that you don’t understand how the models were trained and that it in no way “screwed up”.
have you gone this many years and not learned how to apply spray sunscreen?
It is knowable. You just don’t know it.
This only shows things I’ve explicitly hidden.
Ok. You have clearly said that already. If you have nothing else, then I guess we can agree to disagree