There are kids under 18 who drink and plenty under 21 who drink. Still a very good idea to ban under 18 drinking, and not a terrible idea to ban under 21 drinking. You can do this for lots of rules and laws.
So yeah, they're basically saying "one can get around the rules" and nothing more than that. Therefore, there is no argument here, just a truism.
> It would be very hard for people to condemn Kramnik for his cheating accusations all the while chess' top star Carlsen was on a bullying spree of his own against Niemann.
Doesn’t seem that hard from seeing all the comments here. I make an effort to keep away from chess forums online because of this stuff; most of these people are literally children, like under 14, but you can’t tell online lol.
A big percentage of the top grandmasters skip high school and almost none of them have went to college. They are “smart” in that they have the potential intelligence to learn that stuff, as demonstrated by them having learned chess, but they have basically no knowledge of statistics, mathematics, plenty of other general knowledge topics.
From that point of view, you should really consider them to be as knowledgeable about these things as high school dropouts. It was hilarious following the whole cheating thing and seeing them try to interpret these statistical results and coming to really stupid conclusions.
You could say it’s difficult to see them this way due to the cultural and historical perspectives on chess but this is the reality of top grandmasters at this time.
Innovation is a pretty neutral concept. It doesn’t care about things like “what if my model learns from other models” as opposed to “what if my model learns from data I painfully curated” if the model progresses the same.
All about perspective! Plenty of romance stories that start out with stalking. (Though I guess from a social normative conversation pov, you would want to keep up the kayfabe).
I think it's still the case, especially during summer. People get busy and less interested in online bs once they graduate high school or college. I've noticed, someone mentions their age here and it skews younger pretty often.
Harris was a known to be bad with respect to the war issue, became very obviously bad when she started campaigning with Liz Cheney. Trump was less known bad, so that difference should certainly have swayed your decision.
Still doesn't make sense. You were criticizing: "But once a technology like general-purpose humanoid robotics exists, it’s costs are only likely to decrease over time."
But the point was currently general-purpose humanoid robots is not affordable by the average person like say cars or washing machines currently are, but it will be because the costs will decrease. There was no argument that the price will forever keep going down, just like the price of cars or washing machines are not expected to constantly go down.
Those are all tech that almost everyone owns. Makes sense that mass production would reduce costs and then the cost reductions would go towards zero. For new technology that hasn't been mass produced, it's a completely different story.
So yeah, they're basically saying "one can get around the rules" and nothing more than that. Therefore, there is no argument here, just a truism.