They couldn’t be much more popular than what they already are. Seems that nowdays it’s rare to not have any.

my SO actually wears only the bottom of the bikini and goes bra less to the beach, because she says it’s unfair I can free my nipples and she can not

Doesn’t sound like she can’t.

I only have the beer part of this equation figured out.

LLMs have no intentions. They only do what the user asks them to.

Everything you do changes your brain activity.

This isn’t about using ChatGPT broadly, but specifically about the difference between writing an essay with the help of an LLM versus doing it without. And in this case, I think it all comes down to how you use it. If you just have it write the essay for you, then of course it won’t stimulate your brain to the same extent - that’s like hiring someone to go to the gym for you.

Personally, the way I use it to help with my writing is by doing all the writing myself first. Only after that do I let it check for grammatical errors and help improve the clarity and flow by making minor structural adjustments - while keeping the tone and message of my original draft intact.

For me, the purpose of writing is to convert abstract thoughts into language and pass that information along, hoping the reader understands it well enough that it forms the same idea in their mind. If ChatGPT can help untangle my word salad and make that process more effective, I welcome it.

In my view, even voicing genuine doubt about the validity of elections undermines the very democratic institutions people claim to care about. It feeds into the same narrative that Trump and others have pushed, casting suspicion on the process and eroding public trust. Whether intentional or not, it ends up doing their work for them.

Every time I see this meme format I come to the comments specifically looking to see who gets angry about it this time.

This headline format makes me irrationally annoyed.

They shouldn’t be making assumptions about what the reader thinks. It almost feels like they’re planting a bias first and then presenting the facts - instead of just laying things out and letting people make up their own minds.

However, two wrongs don’t make a right, and these attacks remain blatant violations of international law and the UN charter. If “we” want to maintain any semblance of supporting a rule-based world order, as opposed to just “right of the strongest”, we can’t accept these kind of violations of international law.

Legally speaking, I agree. I’m speaking strictly from a strategic or game-theoretical standpoint. I see this as a binary situation: either we physically stop them from building a nuke, or they will build one. I’d much rather we strike preemptively now - so long as it actually stops them - than have to deal with a nuclear-armed Iran in the future, especially given their history of threatening violence, using violence, and funding violence.

Nukes never should’ve been invented in the first place. But we can’t put that genie back in the bottle, so this is the best we can do given the current situation. They don’t have to pursue one - they’re choosing to, knowing full well the potential (now actual) consequences. I’d argue that the tragedy of a nuclear detonation in a major city far-outweighs, by orders of magnitude, the human and geopolitical cost of preemptive strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities. I’d be against it too if the facility were in Sweden or Finland - but it’s not.

Okay, well let me clarify. I think they were justified in doing so. I don’t want them or their proxies obtaining nukes because unlike Russia or even North Korea, they’re actually suicidal enough to use them.

Many. Yet they’re still justified in striking a nuclear bomb-making facility in a nation that has more or less said it plans to use it.

unprovoked attack on their energy infrastructure

That’s one way of putting it.

Who said it was “totally annihilated”?

It’s a tunnel system over 70 meters beneath a mountain. To totally annihilate it, you’d need more GBU-57s than exist in the world - or a nuke.

Not desperate enough, apparently. I’ve yet to see any of the people who were absolutely certain yesterday that a nuke was going to be dropped admit they were wrong.

The only voter demographic that saw a decrease in the last election compared to 2016 was white men. If you’re going to cry “rigged election,” then you’re undermining democracy in exactly the same way the MAGA crowd does.

I’m sure the military has plenty of other options.

The other option is the GBU-57 bunker buster bombs, which is what they used - but a single bomb like that isn’t capable of reaching deep enough on its own. So they had to use a significant portion of their stockpile to achieve their objective that way.

The alternative would have been to drop in special forces and have them break into the heavily defended facility the traditional way.

It would help to some extent, but they’d have to keep bombing the facility consistently - and indefinitely - to keep it out of service.

US Reportedly Assesses It Would Need to Drop Nuclear Bomb to Destroy Iran Nuclear Facility

Well, they did it.

No they didn’t. It was conventional bombs, not nuclear.

Could go both ways, really. A good part of the population - especially in big cities - is quite fed up with the Islamist regime, and a large number of them likely aren’t too thrilled about the prospect of it building nuclear weapons either. It might not be the way they would’ve preferred a regime change to happen, but if it looks like it’s about to happen, they’ll likely seize the opportunity.

Working with your hands is a good way. I feel like online discussions often forget that people like this even exists.