I always wonder what a modern day Robin Hood might look like in relation to people like this. How would such a person target a billionaire, and redistribute even some of that wealth to people who actually need it?

In particular, how would you do that at a billionaire’s scale, in such a way that financial institutions don’t or can’t immediately claw it back?

That assumes they’re following the legal framework. ICE is well outside of it now.

Generally they beat me to it - either it’s posted in the ad, or your asking rate is in the application questions. I do usually wait to ask until later in the process, though - employers can be pretty unreasonable about asking about salaries in general

It’s common practice now. I’ve been interviewing for over 4 months, and ask these kinds of questions every time (except for the salary). Over a dozen interviews, and not once has there been even a hint of relucrance to respond.

Op dodged a crap company

Do they do different dialogue styles well? I could see using it for NPC chatter

Right now, it’s just a fun toy, prone to hallucinations.

That’s the thing though - with an LLM, it’s all “hallucinations”. They’re just usually close to reality, and are presented with an authoritative, friendly voice.

(Or, in your case, they’re usually close to the established game reality!)

I just reread the series a few months ago. Seeing the Shire suddenly jump from a place of ordinary happiness to a place where Frodo has to sneak from place to place, depending on the discretion of his neighbors, hits a lot differently now than it used to…

And a national guard!

Wh- hey! What about the rest of us?!

How much time do we have to move before this goes through?!

Yep, this is how I understood the story. For whatever reason, God considered himself bound by the rules he laid down, and so worked the system to break everyone out of it.

It’s based on the old idea of offering sacrifices to atone for sins. Do bad thing, sacrifice a dove or whatever to God to make up for it.

The idea is that God decided to do away with the sacrifice system using said system, by sending and then accepting a sacrifice great and pure enough to wipe the slate clean forevermore - his own self/son.

I’ve heard that it hits people from cultures where they do still sacrifice for every sin particularly hard - we might not have the frame of reference to really get this fully anymore.

Perhaps. I’m not sure I agree, honestly.

But I’m certain there’s never a time to hit a person you’re responsible for, who depends on you.

Man, my kids love windows.

They keep opening their bedroom windows in the middle of winter and making igloos from their pillows and blankets!

I like to replace the concept of “free will” with that of “agency”.

The Britannica definition of free will is “the supposed power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universe”. But it seems to me that any state where you temporarily cannot act or communicate would automatically rule out free will, at least while that condition persists. Do you lose free will every time you fall asleep? Are people who are aware but whose bodies are nonresponsive - people who are “locked in” - lacking free will? Certainly both conditions lack agency, but these are still inarguably people - yet free will is so tightly bound with the concept of personhood, that it’s supposed lack is often used to imply one is “less human”!

Frankly, free will seems like too broad and binary a concept to match what people actually do and deal with day to day. Agency comes in degrees, and can be gained and lost - which seems to me a much closer match to what people were trying to describe with the phrase “free will”.

The d in “dick” doesn’t quite have the top of the round part connected to the vertical part, so it looks like “click” - a homophone of “clique”

He’s not accepting it, he’s declaring it!

Totally different thing!

Yeah, from the article, it sounds like only a few organizations were in the lawsuit. They’re the only ones the judge ordered restored.

“There’s not going to be an election in 2026” is defeatism. The message to fight for it is, “We need to make sure there’s still an election in 2026”.

The administration is characterizing her as an activist and an agitator, in order to try to retroactively justify her killing.

This story is putting the lie to that statement.

Doesn’t say it wasn’t an apple!