Lodespawn

Huh? Csections arent high risk if they are planned, they become high risk when they are an emergency solution to a problem natural birth. Also the recovery period is 4-8 weeks

Ergh this is their hobby, what a bunch of sex pests

Weird, ICP has always been slop of one form or another, seems odd to get mad about it now ..

I think that's an odd way to start a post asking for car advice, but regardless the advice should hinge more on the vehicle and the problem rather than the sex of the advised. Having a dick has never helped me solve a problem with my cars ..

I didn't read the post that way, but that makes sense. I read it as they were calling her he/him because they had decided she wasn't a she after it had already come up.

Regardless they are such a bunch of fragile gatekeeping man babies. Even if it was a man who was asking to be called by female pronouns, why would they care? It's irrelevant to the topic.

Just make a rule that a company will be taxed on its local revune assuming it made profits equal to it's most profitable "related party". Eg, Adani Ireland has 30% profit, then we assume Adani Australia's revenue includes 30% profit and we tax that.

The fuck? Has Zempilas laid off the coke for a few days or something?

I mean, I support this new and improved basil but it seems like an odd turn of character.

Hastie, as usual, can go jam his shit ideas somewhere his christo-fascist pals won't like him playing with.

Err haven't they already killed 400k people?

It seems like nonsense to even be wasting time arguing about whether she's a woman or not on a car forum, but how did it even come up?

Discovery had some good episodes, but a lot of the writing was terrible, like the season with the ship that had all knowledge that they couldn't get away from, they wrote themselves into a corner and then the resolution was nonsense

Nah so their definition is the classical "how confident are you that you got the answer right". If you read the article they asked a bunch of people and 4 LLMs a bunch of random questions, then asked the respondent whether they/it had confidence their answer was correct, and then checked the answer. The LLMs initially lined up with people (over confident) but then when they iterated, shared results and asked further questions the LLMs confidence increased while people's tends to decrease to mitigate the over confidence.

But the study still assumes intelligence enough to review past results and adjust accordingly, but disregards the fact that an AI isnt intelligence, it's a word prediction model based on a data set of written text tending to infinity. It's not assessing validity of results, it's predicting what the answer is based on all previous inputs. The whole study is irrelevant.

I guess, but it's like proving your phones predictive text has confidence in its suggestions regardless of accuracy. Confidence is not an attribute of a math function, they are attributing intelligence to a predictive model.