I specifically needed a numpad on my keyboard so I went for a 40% ortholinear. I have the numpad on a layer on the right hand side. With all keys reachable from the home row, I can use it more easily/quickly than on a full-sized keyboard so it’s really the best possible solution.
I’ve configured the layer button so that it can either be held down for quick use, or toggled with a double tap.
Facetious at best.
I was happy to assume your original argument was a genuine mistake and you’d respond in an honest manner. I’m not interested in debating whatever additional, spurious examples and analogies you want to dream up to argue about - they’re irrelevant and this increasingly looks like an attempt to muddy the water of a serious, and plainly evident issue.
You’ve made it obvious enough that your intentions here are dishonest, so don’t expect any further engagement from me.
“The definition of “anti” is “to oppose” or “opposite” and it can very well be treated as a negation - particularly when it is used in political discourse, where being “anti-anti” very strongly implies being “pro”, and trying to argue otherwise is facetious at best.”
You seem to have missed the bit that came after: Gun<>murder, so you can’t just use the terms interchangeably in the way that you have (category error).
The definition of “anti” is “to oppose” or “opposite” and it can very well be treated as a negation - particularly when it is used in political discourse, where being “anti-anti” very strongly implies being “pro”, and trying to argue otherwise is facetious at best.
Your example does not support the point you’re trying to make.
Gun = murder device. Gun <> murder. You can’t just arbitrarily switch between the two concepts.
Anti-anti-murder device = pro-murder device. Double negative
That’s not true. The majority of wine is aged in standard oak barrels. Bourbon barrel-aged wine is a modern gimmick which is not at all common in the classic wine growing regions.
“What we are building now are things that take in words and predict the next most likely word…”
This is a gross oversimplification and doesn’t reflect current understanding of how the most advanced LLMs work. Anthropic has recently published papers showing that Claude “sometimes thinks in a conceptual space” and will “plan what it says many words ahead”.
This doesn’t seem quite so different from human intelligence as what the summary suggests.
https://www.anthropic.com/news/tracing-thoughts-language-model
Dithering… Shit or get off the pot.
Caravan owners will often holiday in them frequently, though others will mostly/exclusively use them as holiday lets. I believe that they can’t be occupied all the time (maybe 10 months in a year) so no permanent residents (I could be wrong on that though.)
If we don’t act soon, literally the entirety of the world’s GDP will be spent on treating type-2 diabetes! It will be totally unavoidable!
For real though, I have to work now. Go tell your jokes to someone else.
No comrade - forsake this heresy! Never forget that “It is impossible to get type 2 diabetes eating a ASF diet.” To save the planet and eliminate type-2 diabetes and metabolic dysfunction we must convert all available land to the raising of livestock. It is the only way!
I wish to join your crusade against the scourge of type-2 diabetes. Let’s get the whole planet on a keto diet - it’s the only way to stamp out what is clearly the biggest threat to civilisation! I’m not sure how we’re going to rear all the livestock needed … perhaps we focus on eating ‘long pig’ for a generation or two.
And now we’re back to equivocating and straight-up bullshit. The idea that the treatment of diet-based health problems has an environmental impact at anywhere near the level of rearing livestock is so laughable, that it’s hard to believe that you’re not just trolling now.
“It is impossible to get type 2 diabetes eating a ASF diet.”
You mean a zero-carb diet?! I’ve clearly taken you far more seriously than you deserve - more fool me.
I’d love to engage in productive discussion, but you’re clearly being disingenuous and I’m not prepared to waste anymore time with you.
I’m sorry but while it might be your first priority, your health condition is irrelevant to the science. The overwhelming majority of the planet’s population can get all the nutrients they need from non-animal sources. Dedicating so much land to the raising of livestock is extremely destructive and utterly unnecessarily.
Have you considered an ortholinear layout? Can use the whole keyboard as a numpad if you like (I’m a programmer too and specifically went for a 40% ortho for this reason.)
You’re denying well established science to try to justify your lifestyle. It’s time to start being honest with yourself.
Did you actually read that paper? It’s talking about hundreds of nanograms of methane produced per gram of plant matter. The rumen produces about 20,000,000ng of methane per gram of grass.
No, removing livestock will generally lead to increased vegetation and biodiversity, longer growth and more photosynthesis. There would be an increase in plant litter leading to increased microbial activity - releasing some carbon as CO2, and sequestering most of the rest in the soil.
Methane production would occur in anaerobic conditions (e.g. waterlogged or more compacted soil,) but nowhere near as efficiently as it does in the rumen of livestock.
The ultimate cause is an economic system which is failing to meet the needs of the majority (combined with media run by, and for the minority who the economic system does serve.)
The media’s real purpose at this point is to distract the majority from the real issues, and deflect any movement towards a real solution.