JohnnyCanuck

The Wikipedia article on Spice has some pretty good details on the subject:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spice#%3A%7E%3Atext=Early+history

I'm pretty sure BC did over 40 prescribed burns in 2024, half of which were planned by first Nations. They're doubling that next year.

I only mention it because the article discusses it like its not part of the strategy at all, but it absolutely is. Maybe we need more, I'm not an expert, but I was surprised by the tone in the article, emphasis mine:

"Following the lead of Australia and the United States, we need to reinstate the routine preventive burning that Indigenous Peoples traditionally practised."

Thanks.

FYI for those wondering this is a bit buggy and I'm not sure how they come up with their possible word lists... Lots of pretty common words were not accepted and a few I've never heard before were.

Mariah Carey has been so overdone she's now Pariah Carey.

How did you get in my house!?

(yes, we have this exact drawer, though I moved the scale to another drawer)

I disagree. If you say "oranges are closely related to citrus fruit" you're implying they're not citrus fruit. It's not ambiguous.

But.... I can see the difference with "great apes" in the colloquial sense.

However, I changed the question to "What are the great apes scientifically" and it still left humans off, and this time didn't even mention humans.

I think that is outright, unambiguously, incorrect. (And ChatGPT agrees fwiw, though it left bonobos off the list, so... )

A lion would eat a human and is smaller than a horse. A predatory horse would wreck the shit out of a human.

It specifically says "great apes are closely related to humans".

My bad, I scrolled it out of view when I took the screenshot.

It was definitely the AI, here's the unscrolled view:

I wasn't complaining. I was making fun of it, pointing out how dumb it is. I thought people would appreciate it (and it seems to be the case, with a few exceptions) and I created the community so there was a contained place for people to do the same. You don't have to participate in it, there's a way to turn off that feature.

However, I responded to your comment about people complaining because I think people have every right to complain. You seem very focused on the problem being for individuals, when I think the problem (that I'm talking about) is much bigger than that.

And no, I can not fix Google giving incorrect information to billions of people.

I would recommend you not start posting what it generates about specific individuals willy nilly. I'm not sure what your intentions were but just so you know, it made me feel very uncomfortable.

And yes, I know it's info that is publicly accessible and anyone could do that, but it's a bit weird to have it posted like that, particularly when it's so exaggerated and inaccurate.

Yes, you do. You can complain about google (or whoever) feeding disinformation to the masses.