>85% or the stuff that isn't thirst traps/onlyfans promotion is straight up misinformation

That's the internet. Have you seen the Drudge Report within the last decade? Or The Blaze?

They're slamming one company for something that's very common throughout the internet.

And the tool they're using to do so is WILDLY broad.

>Chinese government having direct access to influence and push propaganda to 150 million Americans

I didn't realize all those thirst traps were Chinese.

We don't have a bunch of people who own things and collect rent off them instead of working?

Yeah, we don't have dukes or counts with hereditary titles, but we absolutely have people who fulfill the other characteristics of an aristocracy

Prevent something like the Arab Spring from ever happening again.

Why do you think the Saudis are bankrolling him?

Only in specific circumstances. From Wikipedia on conservation of matter

> In reality, the conservation of mass only holds approximately and is considered part of a series of assumptions in classical mechanics. The law has to be modified to comply with the laws of quantum mechanics and special relativity under the principle of mass-energy equivalence, which states that energy and mass form one conserved quantity. For very energetic systems the conservation of mass only is shown not to hold, as is the case in nuclear reactions and particle-antiparticle annihilation in particle physics.

> Mass is also not generally conserved in open systems. Such is the case when various forms of energy and matter are allowed into, or out of, the system. However, unless radioactivity or nuclear reactions are involved, the amount of energy escaping (or entering) such systems as heat, mechanical work, or electromagnetic radiation is usually too small to be measured as a decrease (or increase) in the mass of the system.

> it is not a primary source

AND NEITHER IS ChatGPT

No original information comes from ChatGPT. It is just a repository.

That's my point.

>it's neither a primary (best) source, or even a secondary source, like a newspaper article.

> It's just a random assortment of (mostly correct) information. That's the same reason why academia doesn't currently allow Wikipedia as a source for information

"quoting" ChatGPT as a source is also stupid, because it's neither a primary (best) source, or even a secondary source, like a newspaper article.

It's just a random assortment of (mostly correct) information. That's the same reason why academia doesn't currently allow Wikipedia as a source for information.

>it’s well known that it has passed multiple professional exams.

Well yeah. There's very clearly defined correct answers for professional exams.

When a student is writing an essay, the primary objective is creating and defending an argument. Abdicating that responsibility to ChatGPT is circumventing the entire point of the assignment

>How does quoting a Chatgpt improve education?

Yeah, ChatGPT is like a tertiary or worse level source. If Wikipedia is an unacceptable source, ChatGPT is at least an order of magnitude worse

Good thing reddit doesn't go around calling itself a "free speech absolutist" then

I doubt that was her call to make.

I think they probably reported the problem, and then the company decided it was cheaper to trash the feature than try to fix it.

If you read the second half of the article, it's not really about Twitter, it's about oversight of algorithms generally.

Author is basically arguing for government creating an external "machine learning ethics" oversight committee and/or open sourcing everyone's algorithms to public entities for bias checking.

>All the big tech companies

Yeah, there's like a dozen of those, but there are thousands of smaller companies, and other fortune 500 companies that aren't tech focused who are still hiring.

Job market is hotter now than its been in decades

>he is actually delivering on freedom of speech

Super freedom.

He really freedommed that kid who was tracking his jet. And all those journalists who said things he didn't like.

Nothing says freedom quite like banning people from your platform.

Is he absolutely within his rights to do that as the owner of the platform? Sure. But is he a "free speech absolutist" like he claims? Absolutely not.

I do this with my wife

He's not paid by the securities themselves, he's paid by his bosses and their friends who are invested in those securities

He's not a joke. He's a tool of the establishment.

Cramer promotes whatever Brian Roberts and his fiends want to sell. The people who watch Cramer buy that stock, the price goes up, and the primary holders sell.

That's why he's so consistently wrong.

Probably not 10-19 year olds looking for investment tips

Lately lots of /r/<technologyhelp> posts are easily googleable questions, and people think it's easier to ask reddit directly, than Google the answer (which likely has a top result that's a reddit post from the last time somebody asked)

>If someone on social media or TV is telling you to invest in something, it's already too late to get in.

Yeah, i got sucked into buying dogecoin back when it was at 0.32 by some acquaintances who bought it when it was fractions of a cent. Now it's at 0.07.

Wish I'd had 10 grand to put into bitcoin when it was 2k, and I was telling everyone I knew to buy.

Only Elon is allowed to do that

Yeah sure, but the 200$/month bus fare is pennies compared to the thousands of dollars you're losing in declining stock.

Companies don't care about long run, only current quarter.

Also, who's leaving a FAANG because they can't get free rides to work?

>it should be in company interest to reduce administrative workload on managers.

There is no workload for managers if no one submits requests. And the company saves money

I mean probably.

Or she's an actual crazy person, and assumes that God struck down the power because he hates drag queens.

Police need to make that determination (assuming they're actually doing their jobs, and not just klan men)