No, it was clever from a business decision. Unethical, but strategic. 'Stupid' would imply it was a mistake, or not considered properly.
Thanks!
Can I have a link to the actual article/paper?
You think it was stupid? It was obviously an intentional choice to influence people to pester their friends to get Apple devices so it will 'just work'
So what's the genetic difference? If the copy was good enough, surely they would be dire wolves? Also, what is the motivation to bring back dire wolves?
Maybe if it's something like an ender pearl stasis chamber either on a timer or on a server that needs a daily ping to not activate. Not a big bulky device.
It was wrong then - nothing existing is far preferable to this world with all its suffering
I must have missed, which app are you using to run the models?
Please do. I don't have that much VRAM, but I do have slow RAM I can use.
I mean, words are defined based on how people use them, they don't have precise objective definitions like that. Words are messy, subjective, and the meaning is dependent on the context and culture it's being used in. I'm sure in some academic contexts that is the accurate definition, but there will also be cultures and contexts where your original intuition about the meaning was correct.
Cool! I've added it to my library, will probably have fun with it later :)
That was an interesting read. It had a good point, but I feel it could have made it, perhaps better, without bringing in the Freudian obsession with sex, and several wild claims which it did not provide sources for. It also seemed to imply that gay sex was abuse in and of itself, regardless of the consent of the people involved, and did not recognise nonbinary people. Soo, that's not great. But still, a very interesting read, thanks for sharing!