What would happen if you disabled all connections on a Tesla? Or put it in some kind of Faraday cage? Would it just shut itself down, or would it keep running in its current state?

Humans are just off-brand octopuses.

“Doctor, please help me! I have a terrible pain in my side.”

“It’s just gas. Trust me.”

Seeing inside empty containers is way more useful than it seems.

This only seems to support the theory

OpenAI programmed ChatGPT-4o to rank risks from “requests dealing with Suicide” below requests, for example, for copyrighted materials, which are always denied. Instead it only marked those troubling chats as necessary to “take extra care” and “try” to prevent harm, the lawsuit alleged.

What world are we living in?

I think it’s both. There are an unbelievable number of people on Facebook, and there are also a TON of bots and inauthentic users. Meta has every incentive to exaggerate their numbers and permit bad actors (at least up to the point that real users are driven away). Same goes for all corporate social media.

Florida once again forgets that Black Mirror is a cautionary tale.

It’ll be more popular than Twitter in a week. Not that it’s hard…

Also note that this app is closed source so there is no way to audit the claims of data protection. The following is from their privacy policy:

Analytics Data

We use Vercel Analytics to collect anonymous usage statistics including:

• Page views and navigation patterns
• Device type and browser information
• Geographic location (country/region level only)
• Referral sources

• Analytics Cookies: Vercel Analytics uses cookies to track usage patterns anonymously

FYI, MintPress news (featured in the screenshot) is funded by shadowy oligarchs associated with Putin, Assad, and Iran. That’s how a journalism student with no real world experience founded and funded a million-dollar news source.

I’d trust this app about as far as I can throw Putin.

The word ילד would be insufficient. It does not include נער, or עלם, which would be the more likely scenario (not to mention עול, which would be unthinkable). זכר is the more obvious choice.

No, you are correct.

If it meant men, it would use the same word twice (like the mediocre translation above). It specifically uses a different word to indicate a different meaning. איש at the beginning of the verse, and זכר in the second part of the verse.

Legitimate scholars all agree that this is not referring to the type of gay relationships that generally exist today. They disagree only with the exact meaning that was intended.

The debate: can a high-and-tight also have bangs

Residents of Floxas notice no change.

✨Pressure Purified✨ raw milk