White water rafting

“What we are building now are things that take in words and predict the next most likely word…”

This is a gross oversimplification and doesn’t reflect current understanding of how the most advanced LLMs work. Anthropic has recently published papers showing that Claude “sometimes thinks in a conceptual space” and will “plan what it says many words ahead”.

This doesn’t seem quite so different from human intelligence as what the summary suggests.

https://www.anthropic.com/news/tracing-thoughts-language-model

Dithering… Shit or get off the pot.

Caravan owners will often holiday in them frequently, though others will mostly/exclusively use them as holiday lets. I believe that they can’t be occupied all the time (maybe 10 months in a year) so no permanent residents (I could be wrong on that though.)

If we don’t act soon, literally the entirety of the world’s GDP will be spent on treating type-2 diabetes! It will be totally unavoidable!

For real though, I have to work now. Go tell your jokes to someone else.

No comrade - forsake this heresy! Never forget that “It is impossible to get type 2 diabetes eating a ASF diet.” To save the planet and eliminate type-2 diabetes and metabolic dysfunction we must convert all available land to the raising of livestock. It is the only way!

I wish to join your crusade against the scourge of type-2 diabetes. Let’s get the whole planet on a keto diet - it’s the only way to stamp out what is clearly the biggest threat to civilisation! I’m not sure how we’re going to rear all the livestock needed … perhaps we focus on eating ‘long pig’ for a generation or two.

And now we’re back to equivocating and straight-up bullshit. The idea that the treatment of diet-based health problems has an environmental impact at anywhere near the level of rearing livestock is so laughable, that it’s hard to believe that you’re not just trolling now.

“It is impossible to get type 2 diabetes eating a ASF diet.”

You mean a zero-carb diet?! I’ve clearly taken you far more seriously than you deserve - more fool me.

I’d love to engage in productive discussion, but you’re clearly being disingenuous and I’m not prepared to waste anymore time with you.

I’m sorry but while it might be your first priority, your health condition is irrelevant to the science. The overwhelming majority of the planet’s population can get all the nutrients they need from non-animal sources. Dedicating so much land to the raising of livestock is extremely destructive and utterly unnecessarily.

Have you considered an ortholinear layout? Can use the whole keyboard as a numpad if you like (I’m a programmer too and specifically went for a 40% ortho for this reason.)

You’re denying well established science to try to justify your lifestyle. It’s time to start being honest with yourself.

Did you actually read that paper? It’s talking about hundreds of nanograms of methane produced per gram of plant matter. The rumen produces about 20,000,000ng of methane per gram of grass.

No, removing livestock will generally lead to increased vegetation and biodiversity, longer growth and more photosynthesis. There would be an increase in plant litter leading to increased microbial activity - releasing some carbon as CO2, and sequestering most of the rest in the soil.

Methane production would occur in anaerobic conditions (e.g. waterlogged or more compacted soil,) but nowhere near as efficiently as it does in the rumen of livestock.

No. Without addressing water sources, if livestock only produced carbon dioxide they might come close to net neutral, but the methane they produce is a huge component of their effect on the climate; that methane simply wouldn’t be a factor if the land were left fallow. They also engineer the land, preventing the growth of forest and creation of peat in areas where it would naturally occur.

"Use of agricultural land for livestock

It’s often thought that livestock farming consumes land that could support crops, but a large portion of agricultural land is unsuitable for other uses. Livestock can convert non-arable land into nutritious food while also improving soil health."

This is a red herring. Livestock takes up 80% of agricultural land while providing only 20% of the world’s supply of calories. Removing livestock would free up a significant amount of crop growing land (where crops are currently grown for livestock consumption,) which would first be repurposed for human consumption. Most pasture land could be rewilded without affecting the supply of calories to humans.

Improvements to soil health are meaningless where in its natural state, that land would take the form of forests, peatlands etc. which can sequester huge amounts of carbon.

Nudie Jeans is a Swedish company which seems to take fair trade and sustainability (including durability) pretty seriously.

Almost once a week from an online supermarket. I typically plan 4 or 5 meals as I shop, with adhoc rice/pasta/noodle dishes, frozen portions and takeaways/meals out that usually lasts for 8 or 9 days.

I mostly cook vegetarian so most of the shop is fresh vegetables. We do eat chicken or fish once a week though. “Essentials” are pea milk, fruit juice, tomatoes, bread, eggs, avocados, oats, fresh/dried/frozen fruits - everything else is meal dependent.

It’s much easier planning and buying from home and the selection online is much better than any of the local supermarkets. The only thing I regularly buy offline is coffee from a local roastery. There’s some great independent shops in my village, but the green grocer can be a bit hit and miss on quality and it’s rare that I can find everything we would like (or need) so I mostly use for the odd thing/special occasions. I will go to the bakery on a weekend in warmer months though.

Pea milk has a similar amount of protein to soya and dairy. It doesn’t have the beany flavour of soya (it’s the closest to dairy in terms of flavour IMHO) and works well in hot drinks.

I have no idea if it’s safe for cats though; it’s typically made from yellow split peas.

A whistleblower is likely to have access to sensitive data or other forms of leverage not directly linked to whatever they’re whistleblowing on. Of course this sort of insurance policy would be useful to them.

Any words in particular? I can only think of certain ableist and misogynist slurs which are uniquely(?) censored on .ml, which I would imagine could be deeply hurtful to those who have been subjected to abuse and discrimination, and are thrown around too readily by ignorant and uncaring sorts (including my past self.)

It would be nice, of course, to be in a world where such measures weren’t necessary to create a welcoming space for all, but we’re evidently some way off.