Why do you think USAID of all groups was involved in election meddling? Their involvement in US foreign policy is usually along the lines of PR and sometimes being used as cover.
The entire point of USAID was to be a central clearinghouse for funding U.S. government pet projects so that the CIA/DoD/DoS stopped funding opposite sides against each other. Didn't always work (See the Middle East), but that's why it exists.
NATO only guarantees the mutual defense of its neighbors.
I presume you mean the UN? They can only actually do anything about international law violations if no permanent UNSC member vetoes it. The US is a permanent member, so...
Leaks about a military buildup are only possible if there's an actual military buildup. Unless the leaks are false. Is there any indication the information is false?
That’s right. And Luca Brasi wasn’t threatening the band leader when he put the gun to his head. There’s a lot of reasons he could have been holding the gun like that— maybe he didn’t have his reading glasses and he was trying to read the serial number? Maybe he was comparing the the band leader’s hair sheen to a known reference gun? If the band leader then ‘decided’ to sign the contract to let Johnny Fontaine leave, it certainly wouldn’t be intentionally coercive.
Yes, of course it's anxiety, because you have one island with a tiny population listening to a leader of a huge military power saying "We'll get Greenland one way or another". Is it surprising people are feeling anxious when what they thought was a military partner starts to threaten other partners? Do you not realize how that is perceived by others?
> The offer to buy Greenland from Denmark was never a threat
Then afterwards said:
> No it wasnt a threat of force
How is that not moving the goal post? They realize they cannot argue for "it wasn't a threat" anymore so they now started arguing it wasn't a "threat of force" instead. Completely missing the point why countries suddenly feel it's necessary to setup defenses in case an ally decide to take "military action" against them.
"You know the U.S. has operational military bases on Greenland soil and Denmark was a founding member of NATO and remains an active member, right?
The offer to buy Greenland from Denmark was never a threat. It was an offer. The U.S. has made similar territorial purchases in the past, including most famously from our oldest ally the French known as the Lousiana Purchase."
The offer to buy Greenland wasn't a threat.
Greenland isn't setting up defenses against the U.S. Denmark and Greenland are part of NATO and run mutual defense exercises regularly. NORAD runs out of Greenland. There is no threat by the United States to Greenland. The U.S. already runs a military base there and has had several other shuttered ones in the past.
There are threats to Greenland from external actors besides the U.S. including especially Russia that is directly across the Arctic. That's why NORAD runs intercontinental missile detection in Greenland.
There is an offer to Greenland and to Denmark, that if Greenland takes it, would mean Greenland would get billions of dollars in funding and economic boosts to their economy, in addition to even stronger guarantees of defense. If the mutual relationship with the U.S. is not desired, then U.S. can always walk. That's not a threat, that's called mutual exchange. If someone wants a divorce, accepting it and walking away isn't a threat.
First it was "we're only against illegal immigration, we want people to do it the right way".
Now it's "we need to limit the volume" and "don't want to get rid of the truly exceptional immigration".
Forgive me if I am skeptical, especially in a world where ICE is rounding up classic "exceptional" immigrants like biology researchers, or South Korean experts setting up a factory.
I think generally, games should move to using the GPU less for graphics and more for computation. Not just AI computation - those fancy GPUs are a big resource that simulation games could be taking advantage of and just... aren't.
(Yes, this is a Paradox callout. Give me less fancy particle effects in Vic3 and use the GPU for computing pop updates faster!)
(Probably the biggest barrier to this is the lack of a convenient C++/C#-level cross-manufacturer compute API. Vulkan is a bit too low-level for game devs to work with, OpenCL kind of sucks, and CUDA is NVIDIA-only.)
The point is that the correlation between doing well on these tasks and doing well on other (directly useful) tasks is well established for humans, but not well established for LLMs.
If the employees' job is taking IQ tests, then this is a great measure for employers. Otherwise, it doesn't measure anything useful.
Oh it measures a useful metric, absolutely, as aspects of an IQ test validate certain types of cognition. Those types of cognition have been found to map to real-world employment of the same.
If an AI is so incapable of performing admirably on an IQ test for those types of cognition, then one thing we're certainly measuring is that it's incapable of handling that 'class' of cognition if the conditions change in minuscule and tiny ways.
And that's quite important.
For example, if the model appears to perform specific work tasks well, related to a class of cognition, then cannot do the same category of cognitive tasks outside of that scope, we're measuring lack of adaptability or true cognitive capability.
It's definitely measuring something. Such as, will the model go sideways with small deviations on task or input? That's a nice start.
That is not how the "dark ages" came to be, and that is not how the Church functioned.
The Church didn't think witchcraft worked and saw belief in its existence as heresy! Institutionally-backed witch hunts were mostly an Early Modern phenomenon, not Medieval!
So I guess you need one? Because the dark ages came upon Europe after the fall of Rome and the following rise of power of the church back in 500-1k AD.
In the time 1100++ the church however started to be a force for progress, and that's the time y'all seem to think about.
The "rise of power of the church" was not the cause of and did not exacerbate the collapse of Roman state power in the Early Medieval period. It was in fact in the Early Medieval that the Church was most instrumental in propagating and preserving knowledge.
Since you seem allergic to sources, here's a pretty good layman-aimed overview of actual up-to-date historical view of the arrival of the "Dark Ages" (i.e. the Early Medieval).
So you attribute the golden era of Church influence, around the 12th century onwards, as the "not bad medieval era", yet the Church is somehow evil and not the new barbarian kings?
I never said the church was evil? Do you need help? You seem to be hallucinating a lot and making up random shit about strangers you know nothing about. And after throwing a casual glance at your comment history, that seems to be a common theme with you. Seeking help would likely be advisable.
