This is a horrible ad hominem attack and actively fuels racism.
Wanting Israel to stop its genocide is a good thing. Antisemitism is a bad thing.
If you insist on equating the two, antisemitism will stop being a bad thing. That would be bad.
This is just insane. No normal person would doubt that arms shipments are a military subsidy.
Reply or not. I’m blocking you.
A rational person would take the information in context. The shooter was not acting in isolation. The shooter was part of an organized military that is heavily subsidized by the US government.
What’s hyperbolic about the last sentence? It’s an easily demonstrated fact that the US sends billions of dollars in military aid to Israel. It’s an easily verified fact that this is a large portion of Israel’s military budget.
If you look hard enough you can always find a nit to pick.
When there are billions of dollars of heavy weapons pounding the entire area to dust, it’s completely disingenuous to talk about who paid for a particular bullet or gun.
The entire operation is heavily subsidized by US military donations.
Weapons. That’s the connection.
The US sends vast arsenals to Israel and Israel uses those weapons for genocide and other war crimes.
That’s outrageous. We should immediately stop funding Hamas.
No more weapons packages.
No more military funding.
The Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group should stop supporting them now.
The current president of the USA is a Democrat.
Democrats used to say, “The buck stops here.”
I have no idea why you keep bringing up that particular deal. It’s not like it’s the only or even last deal the US has signed.
The US hasn’t stopped. The US went out of its way to ensureassure Israel that there wouldn’t even be any delays in shipments.
The US is blatantly enabling genocide and it’s currently headed by the Biden administration.
The rest of the world combined isn’t funneling billions of dollars worth of weapons into the conflict.
You’re right. They’re not LLMs and they’re not particularly new.
The main new part is that new techniques in AI and better hardware means that we can get better answers than we used to be able to get. Many people also realize that there’s a lot of potential to develop systems that are much better at answering those questions.
So when people ask, “Why are companies investing in AI when customers hate AI.” Part of the answer is that they’re investing in something different than what most people think of when they hear “AI”.
A lot of people have come to realize that LLMs and generative AI aren’t what they thought it was. They’re not electric brains that are reasonable replacements for humans. They get really annoyed at the idea of a company trying to do that.
Some companies are just dumb and want to do it anyway because they misread their customers.
Some companies know their customer hate it but their research shows that they’ll still make more money doing it.
Many people that are actually working with AI realize that AI is great for a much larger set of problems. Many of those problems are worth a ton of money; (eg. monitoring biometric data to predict health risks earlier, natural disaster prediction and fraud detection).
When I was a kid, a lot of US maps where US-centered. They would chop Eurasia down the middle and include some overlap on the edges (so places like India might show up twice).
Yeah. I get the intent but it comes off kind of gross.
People chronically underestimate nature.
They see some beautiful desert, a peaceful sea, or an idyllic mountain and assume that nothing so pretty could possible hurt you.
Forget about cute animals that are actually dangerous, any of the above can secretly store so much energy that humans are completely insignificant gnats, in comparison.
Johnny Beluga
Who? Is this a nickname I don’t recognize?
You’re missing option: 3. Completely ignore reality and pretend Biden has a snowballs chance in hell of wining.
Yes. Biden can still win.
The Easter Bunny and Santa are real too and know you’ve been good so you’ll get lots of presents.
“He says” is not the same as “he says, essentially”.
One is directly reflects what he said, the other injects your interpretation of what he said. It requires the leap of believing that defending democracy is best done by stopping Trump, even if it means abandoning journalistic ethics. He claims that defending democracy requires an impartial media.
To say that he doesn’t want to defend democracy is entirely bullshit. It’s not what he says or implies. He just disagrees with you on how best to do so.
That’s not what he says. Not only does Kahn not say that himself, he’s not even asked about it.
He’s asked, “Why don’t you see your job as: ‘We’ve got to stop Trump?’” And he responds that the role of the media in a healthy democracy is to provide accurate and unbiased reporting, rather than hiding or misrepresenting facts to favor one candidate over an other.
There’s nothing false about all the dead civilians.