Good one. I heard in a news report of the Guardian article just a few minutes ago that one reporter quipped, "If a woman asked me to pronounce that list of words. my response would be A-D-I-O-S."
Good one. I heard in a news report of the Guardian article just a few minutes ago that one reporter quipped, "If a woman asked me to pronounce that list of words. my response would be A-D-I-O-S."
To me, strictly by what I call "tech lingo," the forced relationship of "artificial" to "intelligence" is a non sequitur. The two words have no natural relationship, and did not exist together until forced together by the developers of A.I. But then, I was bothered in the device name when. first provided with a desktop in the early 80s. The word tagged to that computer peripheral was "mouse." [It was acutally developed in the mid-60s, but I don't know when "mouse" was first used.] Cute, but irrelevant. Should computer devices be cute? Then, the tail came out of its head. Huh? Now, with no tail at all, "mouse" is completely irelevant. I think the guy who invented it in the 60s called it an X-Y coordinate interface. When I was at Xerox Parc [Palo Alto Research Center, CA]in the late 70s, we called it a graphic user interface.]. Both were cubersome terms. Steve Jobs took a few of those folk to Apple to develop Lisa, the 2nd generation of which was the Mac.
It was suggestred to me by a memeber on this site to considert A.I. as "alternative intelligence." That suggestion freed me to at least consider A.I. as an approrpiate tool, which I could not do before.
Just ran across an article speaking to a recent woke2 rage event: the boyfriend illiteracy test. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/sep/03/boyfriend-literacy-intelligence-test
Women give their boyfriends a list of words to vocally pronounce. Some words are:
“epitome,” “challah,” “fuchsia,” “conscientious," “colonel,” “regime,” “faux pas,” [I'll add "faux law"],and “hors d’oeuvres.”
If men are offended by this test [and you may be if there is no background in Hebrew, Greek, or French langauges]. "Challah" stumped me. I have very little background in Hebrew. I sympathize.
However, I have a retort for you: recall a few years ago in the Harvey Weinstein affair, a woman testified that in his hotel room, "...he told me to take my clothes off, so I did." That launched her as the "#metoo" poster girl, a classic woke1 event.
Therefore burning fossil fuels is also still a necessity.
Yes, it is.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
Tell me what and when the Green New Deal is going to accomplish in total replacement of the 60% of the electrical energy grid consumption currently provided by fossil fuel [as of 2024 latest data from the EIA], and 82% of total US energy consumption including trransportation by 2030; the arbitrary date established by the alleged Green New Deal, which is not even yet a deal [nor is it green or new]. After all, Accordng to AlGore, Manhattan was going to be inunfdated by sea level rise before the end of the 20th century. What didn't he know, since his "inconvenient truth" wasn't truth at all? How will Green do this since it has been around for a hundred years, and is still just 22% [being generous with rounding] of the total energy grid. I say the latter because of the renewability claim by "green" energy. Petroleum is organic-based, being derived from living organisms' decomposition over time. We still do not know how long it takes. It could be a thousdand years. It could be millions of years. The world is at least 4 billion years old, so that's a lot of millions. Four thousant of them, in fact, and counting. Contrary to claims by Green, the production of petrolem crude is ongoing, not halted in the dinosaur age. It will continue production until life no longer lives on Earth. Tell me what switch turned it off so long ago. That's all you have to do to convince me I'm wrong.
Go.
The closest civilzation [a shop] to me [by choice] is 15 miles away.
we seem to be entering into opposite of ice age.
"Seem" is not what it seems. We are currently in an ice age, called the Quaternary, the 5th ice age, beginning about 2.5M yeaes ago. However, within ice ages are interglaciation periods usually lasting 10k to 30k years. We are in a current interglaciation period, about 17k years into it. When it's over, we will begin to cool, again. Earth has been through 4 previous ice ages, followong this cycle; a cycle Global Warming/Climate Change completely ignores. Ice ages last 30 - 300M years, each.
Actually, the safest option is to not go outside.
I wonder, considering it is said that 95% of accidents occur in or within 5 miles of home. No stats I can find that separate injury from death. And then again, I've heard that 95% stat since I was a kid, when world population was about 2.5B, so that "stat" is nothing more than a meme.
What goes up must come down. That's not always a simple, safe exercise; we only know for certain that the up/down is a necessary sequence of anything that leaves the ground with the intent that it return to the ground safe and secure.
That it sometimes does not return safe and secure is what makes the result tragic. In the case of Prime Air, it was the landing that failed; all deaths [5, at present] occuurred with the plane already on the ground. How to stop tragedy? Well, like banning guns, such action will not eliminate death from ocurring by banning flight. Going up in the air by rebound from a trampoline can and does have tragic result. Is the air too dangerous? Or the trampoline. Not oftren enought to ban them.
The NTSB activity has resulted in new tech to resolve some recurring problems. As a result, it is demonstrated that we are now safer boarding an aircraft, flying in it, and returning to the ground in frequent, safe occasions that makes airline travel one of the safest, secure modes of travel for people and for goods.
Peole are fallible; always have been, always will be.
Debby,
China brings roughly 30 to 40 gigawatts of new coal power capacity online every six months. Real Green-Clean of them, huh?
Debby,
That can only be proven on Election Day, when you are prohibited from voting. If you are not, Trump didn't ban you, did he? Until then, who is going to stop you from worrying about it? Which really means, it's in your hands. Trump is ineligible to make law, anyway, and that is what it would take.
Don't be offended by whatever anyone else says. That's unwritten, but an obvious appendage to the 1A.
Don't be offended by whatever anyone else says. That's unwritten, but an obvious appendage to the 1A.
Climate [existental] change? Climate [science]
Long before we thought we knew what climate was, and that it is existentially changing, was a pair of events between 2.somenting billion years ago, and about 580 milion years ago. A pair of ice ages, both so severe, the entire Earth was buried in ice. Yet, therre was active volcanism. Real, erupting volcanoes, with ejected ash and gasses in to the air, corrupting the atmosphere to a greater degree than we observe now, even though man was yet to set foot on the Earth. Lomg before. Imagine that. Natural-caused greenhouse gasses? Yup.
And ice covered for so long, nothing but single-celled creatures survived while that last severe ice age was retreating, finally. Yup. No man, but catstrophic climate, anytway.
Advanve to 1869. American geologist, John Wesley Powell observes, to his surprise, an anomoly on the Grand Canyon wall, sediment that is set on a severe angle, representing the first thrust of the Rockies, and, immediately below it, horizontal sediment deposts. No surprise there; this has been witnessed repeated times around the globe on canyon walls. The problem, Powell discovered, was that the upper, diagnonal deposits, dated at 580M years ago. Immediately below, the horizontal deposit dated at 2.something billion years ago. How and why the intrerruption in dating? To make a long story short, the anomoly was called the Great Nonconformity. It is theorized that as that last long-enduring ice age ended, and with continued volcanism in play, the glaciers were warmng rapidly, melting and moving from the Great Lakes south and west, grinding and removing 1.2B years of sediment layers. Poof. Ground and gone, to be covered once again by more sediment layers [oin Bonneville Lake, a vast sea in its ancient time that extended from east of the evential Mississippi River to the thrust of the Rockies. Man is estimated to make the scene much later, around 100-200k years ago. In geologic time, a blink.
WHAT? Climate change before man? Damn!
That is, indeed, what this entire thread is; a comedy. It is neither historic [except all gens make the same muistakes], nor is it as tragic as it is histronic. Oh! My God, ther sky is falling! It will be tragic, unless the later generations after boomers, learn, as we had to, that we do not have all the answers, either. And contrary to George Sa tayana's fondest hope, we learn little from history as fdollow-on generations.
I'm so glad you're amused
Though according to those Red Injuns most Americans are illegal anyway.
This one is your statement, not mine. My #25 was quoting from your own #17 to Debby. Own it.
To clarify, you acknowledge she is a woman in spite of her biology? How do you define "woman"?
"Jackie has a condition called complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS). She described it as having 'XY chromosomes, which you typically see in males, but I developed externally female because my body can't respond to testosterone.'" https://www.wzzm13.com/article/news/health/know-my-intersex-story-west-mi-tv-radio-personality-jackie-blankenship-opens-up-hormone-condition/69-400b33dc-3798-4e65-b932-5a88a3da53a2
This is quoted from an article about Jackie I found online, and cited above. AIS is one of about 40 separate conditins that define "intersex," each a different varaible that occrs who knows why. To define a "woman" such as Jackie gets into the weeds of biologf, and Ill be the first to admit it. A woman, a person who expresses as XX, the normal femal 23rd chromosome experessed by greater than 99.99% of gumman females is an adult female. Jackie, trhough, had intrernal testes, located abdominally [they never dropped] which were removed when she was a late teen.
Debby,
You are thinking about Trump who ran his company like a criminal.
That was was not Trump, as I've told you ad nauseam, that was the Trump Org CFO. Will you ever get your "facts" reight by personal research?
The fact is, Trump cannot be blamed for everything wrong with your life. Is there a mirror at home, or not? Would you like one for Chrhistmas?
Though according to those Red Injuns most Americans are illegal anyway.
Funny, then, that they went to so much trouble to try to catch up aligning themselves as "American" by making the 60s claim [yeah, they waited that long] to call themselvews "Native."
The question of how “bad” was determined is irrelevant within a conversation where both parties except the premise that X is bad.
Thanks, but as just told you elsewhere, I'll respond, thanks, to whatever I think deserves response. My respionse is oiften filtered througth a legal perspective, which does address the variable levels of "good" and "bad." Sorry if that confuses you by a myriad of grays in your black and white.
Lame attempt to get back in my head. Fail. Don't you have your own? Stay there, please. I'll respond to whatever the hell I choose, thank you. I boffer you the same. Fair enough?
Debby,
The love of money is the root of all evil.
I love the money I earn because I can and do donate 20% of it to charities of my choice. [that's double a tithe] I'll let you be my lawyer to explain why that's evil, but I'm not going to pay you to do it.
Debby,
Does following the crowd as they jump off a cliff make any sense to you, even if they are all European?
I can ask them to prove that I don’t have an invisible dragon in my house.
There is logical fallacy attached to your logic.Where it is not currently true that you have an invisible dragon in your house, therefore, to ask your alien-believing neighbor to prove you do not have such a dragon, using a false statement to prove that the result proves your neighbor's fallacy is a real logical error.
By applying what I learned in 4th grade.
Did 4th grade tell you who determined good and bad for groups A and B?
Did they tell you by which factors good and bad were detrermined?
Did they tell you in 4th grade A and B were given the same good/bad parameters?
I'll wager 4th grade did not offer those details.
And some, today, have PhDs and still are confused. It's been made worse because now there are more groups.
Biological sex isnt an absolute binary.
I get it. However, the numbert of pretenders far, far outrnumber true biological intresex indivduals, who, according to the library of Medicine, affects 0.00000007% of the world populatiion. At least Jsckie Blakenship is not confused. To answer your question, no, I don't think she looks like a man, she says she did not grow up as a man, and considers herself a woman who is infertile. Pretenders make this an issue, when, worldwide, for 99.99999993% of us, sex is abnsolute binary, biologically, with tens of thousands who, by choice, confuse the matter. Doesn't make it so, regardless of hormone treatment and surgery.
This is one of those thoughts that probably sounded great in your head.
Merely an effort to climb in to my head, but, try as you might, it doesn't work that way. Nice try, but, fail.
At 500 words per page in standard 12-point font [standard measure], 100k words is a 200-page dissertation no one will read.
Logic fail.
How do you arrive at that conclusion when fact tells us that a few rotten apples, potatoes, or lamb chops in a barrel will ultimately spoil the barrel unless the rot is removed and the barrel cleansed?
That's not philosophy as much as it is proven science, although correct philosophy [not all is] corroborates science.
no one is really arguing for that
No, my analogy, to date, is far-fetched, I admit. But men today are declaring they are women when there is no biological justification for the claim. As a result, women are being injured, both physically and emotionally. What justifies those injuries so a man, who could not compete and win with other men, can usurp roles and compete, and win, pretending to be a woman? Just as a man pretends to be an eagle, and kills another who pretends to be a puppy. Both need to stop pretending. As Oscar Wilde once said, "Be yourself. Everyone else is taken." I say we should fulfill our personal performance dreams, just as long as in doing so, we are not individually the cause of another's dreams ending. It's as simple as the freedom of speech.
Please explain how this should not be interpreted as “I believe people are nothing more than the sum total of their net worth”.
My monetary net worth is merely one measure of my existence.
What I've learned and stored in my mind is part of my net worth.
The family I've gathered around me is part of my net worth.
The experiences I have had are part of my net worth.
The places I have been in the world are part of my net worth.
The people with me I call friends, are part of my net worth.
The fact that I declare Christ as my Savior is part of my net worth.
The fact that I am made of better stuff than this crude matter, but that I am a being of light is part of my net worth.
The fact that I am a child of God, and all the above, is all of my net worth.
no shit it’s not consistent with reality, that’s why we call that an analogy.
If an analogy does not represent reality, of what worth is it? Not a lesson I desire for my improvement.
is this a game [your "basketball"] set up to test which team is actually better?
No, it isn't, simply because of my answer above re: analogy. Final score is not the only measure, as evidenced by two teams playing each other more than once in a season. Sometimes, one team always wins, sometimes they split victories. Either one demonstrates better skill by more than score. What is not real about your basketball scoring is that it expects that everything worthy of having reduces to a dollar value in capitalism. Nope. Observe the list above about my true net worth. Observe, as well, the encounter of Christ and the rich young man who wanted to get to heaven [Matthew 19: 16-30] Let's note, first, that we do not know until verse 22, 7 verses in, that the man was wealthy, yet all the advice given to him up to then was ignored by him because of his wealth, which suddenly became more important to him than heaven. And the second lesson out of this story is the belief by many Christians who don't get it, either. They think this story means everyone should give all they have to the poor to gain heaven, as if buying the most expensive ticket was the only way to get there. Nope. That was singular advice to that man because that man held more value in his money than he did in gaining heaven. For him and everyone like him. Are you? You seem to value money a lot since that's your singular view of capitalism, by your basketball game. It's all about money. It's all about the score. Nope. Wealth has many qualities, and I've just given you a few of them above. Money is part of it, not all. That's what's wrong with your "analogy."