Tarquinn2049

Only his followers actually use(d) that title for him, everyone else when using that word about him, would say it’s the title his followers call(ed) him. Like how wikipedia is using it. Grok is just using it as his title, like a follower would.

You can think of it kind of like “dear leader” in north korea. Anyone calling him that outside of north korea is at least doing it sarcastically or using air quotes. This would be like if the news called him that with a sincere reverent tone.

To be fair, the wikipedia article says he was called that by the people that followed him. It never calls him that itself.

The grokipedia article, just calls him that.

A subtle, but very important, distinction.

Not to mention the other important part where grok buries any mention of the holocaust 13000 words in, where as it’s in the intro on wikipedia.

Keep in mind, by default, grokipedia started with a copy of what wikipedia said, so any changes are what was hand-edited on purpose.

The changes speak to what they wanted it to say and do differently.

Umm, does he not realise we would also want those pedophiles in jail too?

Like sure ‘every pedophile’ is better, but half is a good start, we’ll get the rest in due time. Stuff is constantly leaking.

Is that not what the other commenters here are arguing? Cuz even when I ask them if that’s what they are saying they keep answering like it is what they are saying, that I must not have gone to an american school. No, I didn’t go to an american school, is it really that bad there? Like Canada is right next to the states, it can’t be that much worse just crossing one border.

I don’t get what you are saying? The kids didn’t do anything wrong? Or they shouldn’t also be in trouble? I don’t get why everyone is saying the kids should be allowed to steal?

Yes I have been to high school, no kids didn’t steal food from the teachers in my high school. But even if they did, they would have been wrong to do so…

Is it really a common thing nowadays for kids to steal from teachers? And not considered wrong when they do?

I really thought the reason it didn’t mention the trouble the kids got in was just cuz including underage children in news articles has to be so redacted as to essentially be pointless unless they are the main focus of the article. Not that they are considered to have not done anything wrong nowadays.

I’m not arguing that she wasn’t wrong, I state multiple times that she was wrong. He’s arguing the kids aren’t wrong at all. I maintain the kids also did something wrong.

So, it’s your opinion that the kids did nothing wrong by stealing and eating the teachers food? They aren’t even partly responsible?

So the parents get their kids home and they are ok with the kids stealing the teachers food, the teacher shouldn’t have had food in the classroom since kids are allowed to just steal whatever they want.

Eating a parents food is a little more understandable, though still not something a kid should do without permission. Eating a teachers food, is down right actual stealing. It is different even if the teacher is supposed to act like a parent, though I haven’t heard of that being the case, if anything teachers are restricted from acting like parents to the children.

They may have some legal burden, but it doesn’t mean it should be treated exactly as if they are the parents in every situation.

But I did say it was fair that the teacher got in trouble, just thought it odd initially that it doesn’t mention the kids repercussions, til I thought about the hurdles involved in writing that bit of the article and assumed they just didn’t bother.

While I definitely get that she shouldn’t have left them sitting out, is it not the fault of the kids randomly eating other peoples food without permission that the food ended up being much more “not for them” than it already would have been?

Well, I suppose just cuz the article doesn’t mention the kids getting in their fair share of trouble doesn’t mean they didn’t, including underage kids in a news article is a hassle and barely worth doing when they are the main or only part of a story.

There is no actual advantage, they are restricted from competing for 2 years after transitioning, and any advantage is already lost during the first year.

Basically, the problem was already solved decades ago. Since that 2 year period was implemented, there has -provably- never been a case of unfair advantage. Any of the ones hitting the news lately have all been disproven.

Anyone still trying to push for it now has not actually looked into it and believing disinformation spread by, at best ignorant people and at worst hateful people.

No one transitions with regards to how they will perform at sports. People transition for themselvrs, and some percentage of people also like competing at sports. They don’t want to never be able to compete again due to random unrelated or unaffected people not knowing they don’t have an advantage.

That is why people that say dumb stuff like you are doing, get downvoted. Please actually look it up, instead of just guessing and being another spreader.

He is a weird guy, but so far only weird in the normal way, it would be a surprise if there is any merit.

She already has many contradicting statements on record about it. Hard to say what actually happened so far, and we’ll only know if it’s pursued, publicly. But there is a decent chance it will go away quietly since she has already torpedoed her chances of it going in her favour. And Renner probably doesn’t want to publicly shame her, so it’ll only go to court if she really wants it to at this point.

Edit: more info exists now. Haven’t updated my assessment, this was based primarily on what was in the article at the time.

Zhou tells PEOPLE in a statement she included Renner in her projects “because I thought and promised to me we were in an evolving love relationship.”

That right there really discredits her claims… if she thought they were in a relationship, why would the messages be considered unsolicited by her?

Kind of seems like she got the wrong impression and then got embarrassed/defensive about it and escalated stuff.

They probably did get in text arguments, and if any of what she is saying turns out to be true, it would be nice to at least see context. The ICE comment is a weird thing to be fabricated, but I could see it being something that was either a knee-jerk reaction, or potentially blown out of proportion. Either way, would really help to see context.

For some reason, they couldn’t find what a ‘member’ of Antifa looked like.

Peaceful protest is what is meant, instead of violent protest. Peaceful doesn’t mean doing nothing.

It’s just the hyperbole. It wouldn’t matter which specific word they used if it more closely matched the level of intensity of what actually happened.

In this instance, even a cliché, overused term like ‘jabs’ would be fine.

I would imagine it’s the same scale, just a base 10 feet instead of 20 feet. So in yours you would see at 24 feet what the average person would see at 20 feet. Assuming there is a linear relation, and no circumstantial drop off.

Also, usually when people use the term “perfect” vision, they mean 20/20, is that the case for you too. Another term for that is average vision, with people that have better vision than that having “better than average” vision.

And you get a TV small enough that it doesn’t suit that purpose? Looks like 75 inch to 85 inch is what would suit that use case. Big, but still common enough.

Hmm, I suppose quality of TV might matter. Not to mention actually going through the settings and making sure it isn’t doing anything to process the signal. And also not streaming compressed crap to it. I do visit other peoples houses sometimes and definitely wouldn’t know they were using a 4k screen to watch what they are watching.

But I am assuming actually displaying 4k content to be part of the testing parameters.

So, a 55-inch TV, which is pretty much the smallest 4k TV you could get when they were new, has benefits over 1080p at a distance of 7.5 feet… how far away do people watch their TVs from? Am I weird?

And at the size of computer monitors, for the distance they are from your face, they would always have full benefit on this chart. And even working into 8k a decent amount.

And that’s only for people with typical vision, for people with above-average acuity, the benefits would start further away.

But yeah, for VR for sure, since having an 8k screen there would directly determine how far away a 4k flat screen can be properly re-created. If your headset is only 4k, a 4k flat screen in VR is only worth it when it takes up most of your field of view. That’s how I have mine set up, but I would imagine most people would prefer it to be half the size or twice the distance away, or a combination.

So 8k screens in VR will be very relevant for augmented reality, since performance costs there are pretty low anyway. And still convey benefits if you are running actual VR games at half the physical panel resolution due to performance demand being too high otherwise. You get some relatively free upscaling then. Won’t look as good as native 8k, but benefits a bit anyway.

There is also fixed and dynamic foveated rendering to think about, with an 8k screen, even running only 10% of it at that resolution and 20% at 4k, 30% at 1080p, and the remaining 40% at 540p, even with the overhead of so many foveation steps, you’ll get a notable reduction in performance cost. Fixed foveated would likely need to lean higher towards bigger percentages of higher res, but has the performance advantage of not having to move around at all from frame to frame. Can benefit from more pre-planning and optimization.