No chance it will even come to the floor for a vote.
ignirtoq
I don't think that follows, because those are temporary conditions, and consuming the drug is a choice made by an individual not currently under the influence. So it's the person's responsibility before they consume the drug to prepare their environment for when they are under the influence. If they're so destructive under the influence that they can't not commit a crime, it is their responsibility not to take the drug at all.
Line graphs of percentages not based at zero make it difficult for me to grok the magnitude of changes. Missed opportunity for the hue line color to match the actual hue in the vertical. Just being an angle value I have no idea what hue it's supposed to be.
Been the only one in my family for years using Linux, but over the last few months struggles with Windows have basically resulted in all but one computer in the house being migrated to Linux.
Put it on my 10-year-old son's desktop because Windows parental controls have been made overly complicated and require Internet connectivity and multiple Microsoft accounts to manage. Switched to Linux Mint, installed the apt sources for the parental control programs, made myself an account with permissions and one for him without permissions to change the parental controls, and done. With Steam he can play all of the games in his library.
Only my wife is still using Windows, but with ads embedded in the OS ramping up, and features she liked getting replaced with worse ones, she's getting increasingly frustrated with Microsoft.
I don't think that word is required. If anything, I think
sometimes you come and pull the lever
sounds more natural, if you have to add a word. They're speaking more colloquially, rather than formally, but I don't think the original is grammatically incorrect.
I've read it 3 times, and I can't find a missing word. It makes sense to me. What word is missing?
No, they would respond exactly the way they already are responding. They would claim climate transition as a concept was made up by liberals, they would deny such a thing is possible, let alone happening, and they would enact policies in states they control to limit speech about it and punish people whose professions have to deal with it. You know, like they're doing in Florida to doctors and teachers about LGBTQ+ and to scientists about the climate.
Democratic candidates have raised far more than Republicans and can purchase ads at the cheaper rate offered to candidates. Republicans rely more heavily on independent expenditures from their campaign arm and allied super PACs, which have to pay much more per ad.
Gee, it's almost like Republicans aren't favored by a large proportion of the population who can donate up to the ~$3,300 federal limit directly to campaigns and have to rely on their wealthy benefactors donating much, much more per capita through side channels that shouldn't even exist in a functional democracy.
How would you scientifically measure a difference between those two definitions?
plus why the right keeps mispronouncing her name
I mean, it's just racism, right?
It serves as a racist dog whistle and a cowardly way to slight the vice president without resorting to overt name-calling.
Yeah, same as always. Important to keep pointing it out, but not exactly an earth-shattering revelation.
I don't see how this wouldn't be derivative work. I highly doubt a robust, commercial software solution using AI-generated code would not have modified that code. I use AI to generate boilerplate code for my side projects, and it's exceedingly rare that its product is 100% correct. Since that generated code is not copyrightable, it's public domain, and now I'm creating a derived work from it, so that derived work is mine.
As AI gets better at generating code and we can directly use it without modification, this may become an issue. Or maybe not. Maybe once the AI is that good, you no longer have software companies, since you can just generate the code you need, so software development as a business becomes obsolete, like the old human profession of "computer."
They weren't, because LLMs don't have reasoning ability, at least not in the way you as a human do. They are generative models, so the short answer is the model most likely made the numbers up, though there's a chance they pulled them directly from some training data that's likely completely unrelated to the user's prompt.
What they generate is supposed to have similar multidimensional correlation as the input data, so there are complex relationships between what the question asked and the output it gave, but these processes don't look anything like the steps you would go through to answer the same question.