The protection is understood to basically be by them from them, in the event you don’t pay. If you pay, things are good. If you don’t, they’ll make sure things are not good.

Is it?

If only there were a huge trove of nutrient dense biscuits nearby. Too bad that one that did exist was incinerated by the Tump regime just days ago. A tragic coincidence I’m sure. /s

I suppose we’re about to find out if these things (LLMs) are any good at extrapolation. I expect not really as they’re effectively just interpolation machines.

Either I missed it or they added it.

It’s kid-approved!

You’re off by 3 orders of magnitude… Retracted.

I’m not CS smart enough to understand this… 😢

Plrase please please do this

I would usually agree with this kind of normalization, but in this case I actually think it would actually obfuscate the picture. Safer roads are a good thing, but if traffic deaths are reduced because more people bike or take the train, that’s still a win. Roads and cars are inherently dangerous, and that danger needs to be minimized using multiple strategies. We need to focus on holistic changes that consider people’s behaviour and their interactions with the built environment.

When people feel they absolutely need to drive, that’s a failure of infrastructure.

Don’t try to change their mind, but rather, ask them why they believe that. Talk about their reasoning for holding that position. Point it out gently when their reasons don’t make sense. Ask them “if details were different, would you still believe what you believe?” Ask them what they would need to see to change their mind.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?

Ah yes, the shelling of a desperate crowd to bring order. Makes sense… /s

all your base are belong to us

You really need to clean your fireplace