Apologies, i cannot divulge that information as per the NDA i signed at the time.
/s
Apologies, i cannot divulge that information as per the NDA i signed at the time.
/s
If people would realize that they try to leave out the terms autism and autistic for a wrong reason (and maybe they don’t) that would be a success
That's phrased in such a way that it seems you think that the only reason to use "on the spectrum" is to purposely leave out the word autism.
If that's what you mean then i disagree, It's only my own anecdotal experience, but it's still at least one instance where what you are possibly suggesting is not true.
Coming from a "my interpretation is the only interpretation" viewpoint is an easy way to get confusing input from the world, at least in my personal experience.
It’s not about choosing whether something is offensive to me or not, but whether it is, be it intended or not.
I also disagree with this, offense is inherently subjective, I'd put good money on me not being the only person who thinks that.
I will however concede that "choose" was a bad choice of word on my part, as it's not always as simple as "choosing".
I am aware that people don’t usually use it to purposefully be offensive, and in that sense I can understand it - but that doesn’t change that (depending on the unconscious reason) it is offensive anyway.
See my answer above about subjective opinion vs objective fact.
But it being offensive to you, regardless of intent, i can understand, which is what i was trying to address with :
You can choose to find the phrase itself offensive and let people know of your opinion, but you should probably manage your expectations around how other people are using it so you can get an accurate reading on social intent.
I phrased that poorly, i think it would be better phrased as :
If you find the phrase itself offensive regardless of intent, you can let people know of your opinion, but you should probably at least try to understand the intent behind it so you can more accurately assess the social context and act accordingly.
for example, if you know they don't intend to be offensive and you react with hostility, that's a valid choice, but it does come with consequences, knowing about the potential consequences beforehand means you can better prepare yourself.
I don't personally consider this a language issue as much as a people issue.
IIRC the current evaluation methodologies are heavily tied to the idea of a spectrum of traits, each with their own scale.
As you say, there are other spectrum diagnoses including autism, so "on the spectrum" is technically correct.
Which is why i consider the issue you seem to be describing as a person issue, not a language one.
A person using a descriptor or label with the intention of being an arsehole could just as easily use a different word or phrase.
Using something that isn't inherently considered offensive however, gives them some plausible deniability.
You can choose to find the phrase itself offensive and let people know of your opinion, but you should probably manage your expectations around how other people are using it so you can get an accurate reading on social intent.
The server CPU's are called epyc and they are powerful, but not in the same way.
Server CPU's are geared to different types of workloads but if you built a desktop workstation with decent one it would be still be a beast.
I wasn't arguing that the server CPU's aren't powerful, i was saying that the latest ryzen desktop cpu was something I'd personally consider to also be powerful.
The threadrippers are also up there in terms of power, but the OP was specifically talking about ryzen.
I mean, going by wikipedia the latest (desktop) ryzen cpu released was the 9950X3D...i'd personally tag that as powerful.
everybody has their subjective scale of power i suppose.
A worldwide revolution in which everyone unites against the "ruling class" isn't a viable alternative in and of itself, that's like saying "world peace".
An example of an alternative would be something which could fill in the blank in this sentence and make sense.
"Don't boycott products/companies, that isn't how you achieve your goal, what you should be doing is "
This is not a war between nations but a war between class
The issue i have with this isn't that it's a marxist cliche (i'll take your word on that, I've no idea) it's that it presents a false dichotomy in which a class war and a national war can't both be occurring at the same time.
I suspect more people than you think realise this is a potential outcome.
Assuming it boils over before there is another election (also assuming that's a thing that happens), military action is 100% a playable card.
It's a toddler with a nuclear tantrum button.
It's honestly not that much different in type than most nuclear powered nations.
The difference is "absolute last resort, and only maybe then" vs "they won't let me annex Greenland and are being mean to me"
Hyperbolic ofc, but illustrative.
What are the reasonable good alternatives though?
Americano is not even American
I mean that's a pretty specific phrasing.
I said it’s not American, as in it doesn’t come from the US.
Those are not the same things, but i know what you mean now, so thanks.
At this point, surely its just easier to say he deported 700k people than to actually do it, his supporters can't possibly care about fact checking his statements so why bother making them factual.
How does it work ?
Paywalls limit access, cost of hardware to run locally limits access.
Can some people access it, yes, is access limited, also yes.
Strawman? maybe?, it's unclear how it's related and as a singular statement is mostly nonsensical.
It absolutely is not, there are several ongoing lawsuits and repeated strikes about this exact thing.
This i agree with.
I agree with this also.
AI is for profit, not for everyone.
The major difference here is the scale but you'll have to look in to that yourself.