I don't know that's why I asked the head moderator for clarification. In response I got downvotes (which ironically is violating this sites rules on community engagement)
How do I transfer 3 years of memories over to Claude? Users really like the personalization they've gotten with ChatGPT. It knows about my pets and their names. I gotta teach all of that stuff to Claude or whomever again? sigh. I'll just stick with ChatGPT.
For now; Plus has already had ad-like things appear below new chats.
What they'll do is present it as a "choice." Keep paying what we're paying but have ads, or pay triple for ad-free. For example, see every streaming service.
Unfortunately people, in particularly this community, would be looking at Local LLMs for ad free alternatives, but prices on GPUs/RAM have skyrocketed keeping us trapped.
That's a misreading of the term in the same way saying that the phrase 'black lives matter' imply white lives don't matter
The point is that this type of environmental pollution only is allowed to happen in poor areas that are disproportionately black because of decades of systemic racism like red lining.
If that concept makes you uncomfortable, that's a good thing, it should. But you should resist the urge to deny the existence of ideas that are inconvenient
What's uncomfortable is not the racism claim, but that the argument is merely a conjecture. It's lazy and dishonest. More importantly, this line of argument tends to shut down intelligent conversation, which this forum is about.
You are advocating for extrajudicial murder for alleged crimes that are not even punishable by death. The US government has admitted it doesn't even know the names of the people it is slaughtering.
You call it extrajudicial murder, they call it war. Hundreds of thousands of dead americans back them up. What can you bring to support your case. A distaste for the reality of violence? I'm not going to bother explaining the nuances of war and why some things that are unacceptable in times of peace are justified in the context of war. I'm sure you are intelligent enough to understand that in theory.
Nobody has managed to deal with the crisis because they've been looking at it the wrong way. I don't even know that this new direction will help. What is clear is that everything that's been tried up until now hasn't worked.
So Trump can use the military to go kill anyone anywhere for any reason just by saying the word "war", with no oversight or actually reasoned justification at all?
"Or" means at least one of multiple alternatives. Alteratives contrast with each other, they differ. Of course, the original author could be repeating the same thing for emphasis, but more likely they are saying two different things. Since the second thing is discrimination, the first thing, "DEI", must necessarily not be discrimination. If they merely wanted you to not discriminate, they could have just said "follows federal anti discrimination laws" which are quite stringent.
They are saying the same thing twice. They repeat themselves specifically because certain groups hold a strong belief that "discrimination" only goes one-way, and have effectively twisted the meaning of the word in their minds.
The explicit mention of DEI is a way of saying "yes, that means ALL kinds of discrimination, including the kinds you may believe are morally correct".
That may be what they mean, but it is a sufficiently dubious interpretation that one can't reasonably use it to obtain the funding unless clarification is provided by the administration.
You're free to disagree with anyone here, but playing stupid is only a waste of time. It's not a difficult topic to understand both sides of, regardless of where you come down.
reply