I've recently hand the 'pleasure' of dealing with legal issues. Google ai was giving me lots of useful sounding advice but you ask for case law, and then Google itself can't find it, and the ai in that search is guessing that you've made a mistake, because the citations just don't exist.
But then you have programming where it appears to be scarily good.
So is this a case of programmers program so their Ais are tested to be good at programming? Or is this cognitive dissonance on our part?
To tie it in to this post. Is it a good thing to have the ai generate the code and data? It assumes an understanding that isn't really there.
very broad extrapolation of the previous two 'cycles'. after a peak, it tends to crash to 20-30% of previous peak value, goes sideways for a year or two, then goes up to 2x its previous peak.
the 'four year cycle' is perhaps moreso the 'US presidential cycle'.
So basically bitcoin is the finance equivalent of fascism/extremism?
It promises something better than the current broken system. And people end and up not looking too hard for / are willfully blind to, the flaws, until it inevitably bites them in the arse.
Why do you jump to the conclusion of parent being the problem? Your comment implicitly accepts that people's social skills can be problematic, but you assume it isn't the manager?
I actually do not really mean what I wrote. I disliked what the commenter had to say about other people's social skills in a different thread and wanted to get one in. Not my most mature moment.
So technically you do mean what you said? Just aimed at the parent in particular, not as some general rule.
Anyway, maturity is overrated, and sometimes A holes need to be called A holes, I haven't read the comment at issue so whether the parent deserved it is left as an exercise for the reader.
But then I live not so far from Penistone, so maybe I'm just used to these kind of naming schemes.
reply