Which said anything about it being a "working translation"? It renders context. You can infer from that much context, that someone is clearly using a dialect to obscure their message so as that the LLM would be confused.
Ah, I forget, Finns are just so bad at reading between the lines. (see Law of Jante from the other reply).
No, speaking in a dialect doesn't actually make it impossible for an LLM to understand you. Just like you've seen when you rewrote your Finnish comment again and again and fixed this and that. Like I said, the Northern dialects aren't as good in that as SW ones, because in the SW dialects, words are intentionally shortened, giving the LLM less data overall. And since a lot of words are shortened a lot of them are the exact same, so it's easier to confuse the context. For instance "sel" could be "sinulla", "sillä", or beginning of "sellainen". But if you write "sellaane" the LLM really isn't going to be too confused. That's why you need longer sentences to try and confuse it.
However, if you go back 10 years and more, speaking in dialects made it so translators didn't have a snowball's chance in hell. Even the actual Finnish book language translations were all complete garbage.
Now you can pick up context quite well even in completely obscure languages. If you don't speak the language, you don't know how inaccurate it is, but unless it's something very suitable but misleading, you're probably gonna understand that "ok this didn't work".
But yeah it was about 10 years ago when I had a top of the line Huawei with actual text translation from images and speech. I used to entertain my friends by showing how bad it is by just "talking" in asian languages that I sort of knew the general intonation of and maybe some sounds. Not really any words though. Chinese was clearly the worst. I could just gibber sounds and it would try to force it to be a sentence. And more often than not, the answer just sounded like some random Chinese poetry.
It didn't even have Finnish. Finnish from actual live language has only been in a few years. (And it too sucks and governments should definitely not be using it to transcribe anything officially it's gonna be so filled with hallucinations but already also very used).
so please do excuse me, for not believing you to be very good at even reading comprehension, at this point :)
No wörries, I do excuse you, for you know not of what you speak of. :>
Is it a shit translation? Yes. Is it "completely wrong"? No. Will you be able to accept something you said as incorrect, untrue? Also no. ;>
How many times did you go over your comment to try to make it as cryptic as you possibly can, when I just do it with ease? Must be annoying. Finns are always so fucking sensitive about someone being better than them at something. It's actually built into Nordic culture, we just made it way worse.
It's called the Law of Jante and it's quite sad how little you realise it's influencing you.
Perhaps expose yourself to more international culture? Learn a language or two. I did. After having learned all the dialects in Finland as a kid through different variations of Don Rosa stories and whatnot. (Ever read "Uutissii Turust"?)
Now you can of course make your text purposefully contextually missing to the LLM. It's not hard, you're kinda getting there. All you need is a lil practice, honey. And practice begins by understanding you're not perfect. Ie, you can make mistakes. Like saying that "the translation was completely wrong". It really wasn't. It was a bad translation, and the first sentence was wrong, but with AI, you definitely get the gist that someone's just using the language to communicate while trying to prevent others from understanding.
Too bad you have to write such long comments yet to ne able to confuse a simple LLM, but again, with practice, you'll get there. ;>
No yeah I'm doing actual cognitive therapy, not "therapy" as in finding myself as a late teen early 20's with my first trips.
I don't care about people being spiritual, but when they claim their spirituality is superior to actual objective medical science, without being able to reason how or why, then they're just being religious.
But they can actually do dialects. Especially easy ones like yours
If I didn't speak Finnish, I'd still very much get the context of what you said from the translation. You're not exactly being cryptic here.
I would perhaps have to Google a word or two, but in comparison to 10 years ago, machine translation is pretty fkin good.
"It was completely wrong" no it was mostly wrong. I understand that you can't see the difference or understand languages, but trust me "completely" means a different thing than "mostly".
Tahrottvaaliiotelpainottaksesmukamasssunpointtia
Even that isn't completely wrong when translated.
That is nonsense. But it's not complete nonsense, as it renders context as to what the AI has seen. But I understand that you don't seem to have a natural grasp of languages and communication the same way I do, so you're having a hard time understanding that adjectives matter.
the "why bother, I have nothing to hide" territory.
I literally explained why it isn't. "Why bother I have nothing to hide" is a slippery slope argument and a slippery slope works both ways.
So if not changing your username every time, then when? What is the defining factor deciding that, and why?
I'm not saying privacy isn't important. I'm saying that privacy is important, and should be available to people, but that personally I have absolutely nothing to fear. I understand living in a shitty country like the US or Russia or China, and having to lie about one's thoughts and allegiances. But I don't have to.
This isn't the same as saying that privacy shouldn't exist. Just because I'm ideologically a nudist doesn't mean I walk around naked in any given shopping centre, as an analogy. I realise the usefulness of clothes, especially in the winter at this latitude.
No, the meaning of both sentences is completely wrong
No it isn't. The first one is wrong. But see how you say "completely" there as an adjective? Incorrect. It's not completely wrong by a mile.
If this was a language test at a school, you'd give them point for that, because it does render context. As in you can spot that one is using a dialect on purpose. You thought AI doesn't do dialects. Ofc it does. You just need to confuse it's context, like I did, and it's easiest done with the SW dialect that shortens and twists words, the easter and Northern dialects which just add vowels basically are not cryptic enough for AI. And you're just pissed because I did it better
"They're doing forestry, all of them in Helsinki!"
What are "implications"?
If only the snow had thawed, the Finns would've lost
Doesn't even realise continuation war went on for several years.
Like literally you're living in a fantasy that's clearly been programmed into your brain. Has very little to do with reality.
You can see that from reading the comments you've left.
You're arguing the Grand Duchy of Finland was more urbanised than Russia, which has a city of millions of people literally a few hours away from most Finns. We still don't even have a city with a million people. You're trying to pretend that Finland was really "urbanised" when there still even isn't a large city, to be frank. Even the way a city is defined is different in different places.
The capital area is starting to resemble an urban area. You just keep living in your Soviet propaganda fantasies, I don't really mind
That is... that is what I am saying you should do?
But now you've replied twice. That's a pattern!They can track you now. Oh why, oh why didn't you change your username..?!
Very wrong translation though
Nope. It's just somewhat wrong, not "very" wrong. You still very much get the essence. And as I showed you, you can do it without the AI even getting the gist.
The point I'm trying to make is that Russia on the eve of the revolution was less urbanized and industrialized then Finland.
Yeah and you have zero sources for that. Everything points the other way.
The article also says that Finland was (and is) an agrarian society. You're just trying to defend USSR losses, clearly.
"Noo noo USSR had it worse and less industry and Finns were all in cities, doing forestry."
Fucking insane man stop the brain rot propaganda
Edit also Hanko military base wasn't achieved in WWII. The Ruskis had it for like two years. Like I said, the invasion into Russia was successful. But you already forgot about your "if the snow had thawed Ruskis would've taken all of Finland"-bit?
At the time of the revolution finland was more urbanized then the rest of Russia, the population was more concentrated in Helsinki, like you said involved in paper milling
Are you fucking high?
Do you know where paper comes from? What Finland is covered by? What stopped the Ruskis? Forest.
By what inane and/or insane logic do you think that forestry is an urban activity? :DDD
In 1939, Leningrad had 3.1 million people. The entirety of Finland had 3.7 million people. Helsinki had ~250k people.
Most of Finland was just rural. You're spouting complete fantasy.
Hell, I'm from one of the largest cities in Finland and a vast majority of it is still considered very much rural, there's only like a square kilometer or so in the centre that's actually city city.
Zero facts, utter nonsense. The only thing we have is large docks, because we needed large docks for the export for the forest industry. That's why we build the largest cruise ships in the world (fact).
But you'd be very silly indeed to think that only logging was done on-site, instead of actually making the paper mills and cellulose factories where the logging happens to save driving through half the country.
Most of the country is still empty. Not as empty as Russia, because we just don't have the space, but it's not far. Russia is the largest country in the world with vaaaast empty spaces. Finland is quite small. Yet we still only have double the population density. (For comparison the US has almost 10x that, Germany 25x, UK ~29x).
We also had double the population density in 1939.
The urbanisation for both countries in 1960 was very similar at ~55%. However Russia urbanised quicker and then baselined, whereas Finland grew slowly. Ofc that doesn't tell us much of the 40s but they didn't have the data and I was loathe to waste time
So yeah, what goals did Russia achieve, if we put away the land claims. Which by the way wasn't in any way comparable to the splitting of the Koreas. Finland didn't split in half.
By the end of WWII, Finland lost roughly 12% of our pre-war territory. Korea literally split in half, 48% to 52%. Not comparable. There isn't an active Finnic population on the Russian side claiming to be the "real Finland". We lost 0% of our national unity.
My grandma was a refugee thanks to Russkis. She's still my grandma, spoke Finnish, lived in Finland and I'm Finnish as well. I don't think the same thing happened in Korea.
So what "initial aims" did the USSR achieve? Their initial aim at invading Finland was to take a tenth of it?
Russia was operating on planned economies, which just don't function yet. Perhaps in the 24th century, but not yet. For instance they didn't want to label products like screws, so that people and factories are equal. But that also meant no culpability for the factories or workers for shoddy quality. Which very soon led to them having to actually label the products, ie sort of branding them. Ofc "factory 141 of the worker's paradise" or smth isn't exactly unique branding, but to anyone who's been in the military, numbers can be as much branded as the Coke Santa. For instance a lot of people will know the 101st Airborne Division. That's just a number.
So despite their ideals with the planed economy, the USSR actually ended up doing a lot of market economy things, because they're not in market economies "just because" but because they have functionality. Capitalism might take those things too far and pervert them, but Soviet communism didn't see any value in any of them and failed.
Anyway, eagerly waiting your response on how forestry is an urban activity lololol
It's not actually insane at all if you think about it.
There could be a reason for someone to need to break into your apartment, like the emergency services, or someone escaping a natural catastrophe or a murderer. Anything could happen. And at that point, when running away from a hurricane/murderer, you shouldn't have to assume any and all private property may be boobytrapped.
It's similar to but not quite the same as why rape shouldn't have the death penalty. Sure, intuitively one might think that's justice. But if you take the thought longer, you'll realise that giving the death penalty for rape just means that any rapists could murder their victim as well, without it actually changing the punishment. Which means it would always be the logical choice for rapists. Meaning victims of rape would also be victims of murder.
Now obviously no-one wants to be raped, but if you had to choose between being raped and being raped and murdered, I'm sure most at least would choose the former.
If boobytrapping homes would be legal, then the emergency services could reasonably just refuse to go anywhere where there can be traps. And thus you'd end up burning quite a lot of people and people trying of relatively easy to fix medical issues.
I too, would enjoy seeing a thief get something blown off, but do we want boobytraps so bad that we don't care about how many people die from the lack of emergency services?
The amounts of capsaicin I used to put in my food would function as a laxative for a vast majority of people. And had someone at that point stolen my food, I could've just eaten it and said "I like it spicy" and the thief would have zero recourse.
None of what you've linked states that all food and drink are real. In fact, the passage specifically says (didn't read it, did you, you dolt) that
there were some instances where real objects were replicated within the holodeck and used to interact with the holographic program
SOME INSTANCES
Since when did "some instances water is replicated" mean "all food and drink, ever, is always replicated"?
You didn't have a good whatever your native language is called in school, did you? Because your reading comprehension sucks.
I've constantly kept the point that they're not hard scifi and completely writers will, complete soft scifi. You've taken the position theyre hard scifi and that ALL food and drink is replicated. You've a stated something incorrect. I have not.
A 10 to 1 advantage in manpower won't matter if that 1 guy is in a tank and the 10 guys don't even have a gun.
You've never heard of the Winter War, I see.
Russia had a massive war industry in comparison to Finland, where it was literally non-existent.
Even then it shows the lopsided Soviet industrial capacity with how many tanks and planes they had.
Finland had a couple of WWI tanks. And I mean just a couple. When the USSR attacked, we had already placed an order for new tanks from the Brits (Vickers 6 ton tanks) but the first ones were delivered in 1938 and the deliveries weren't complete when the Ruskis attacked.
So they literally had more manpower and more war industry, especially armored vehicles. Tanks.
They were wasted on a war in terrain that would've been difficult without snow, and even more so with.
We found the Russian tanks actually really useful and they helped us keep Vanja at bay. So it wasn't the terrain, it was user error.
Yeah the soviets weren't able to fully conquer finland but they did get a lot of there demands
Please do elaborate. Yeah we lost Karjala and the NE arm. But that's like saying the US won the Vietnam War. They most certainly didn't. Perhaps people won't say Vietnam or Finland straight up won, but both show just how much determination matters.
Because in both cases the invading force had a lot of people from thousands of kilometres away who had never even seen the land they were invading.
So what do you base this "Finland was much more industrialised" bit? Because we really weren't much of a country until Nokia. Really the only thing Finland made was what you wiped your arse on. As in we had a well growing forest industry, and still do. But other than that, we weren't highly industrialised in the 20th century. That only came in like the 70's.
You know people were on rations right? Like my grandma went on and on about rationing. And my dad still had a booze card, although that wasn't just for rationing because of lack of resources (the Bratt system is what I advocate in unison with legalising drugs).
and the snow thawed then finland probably wouldn't have been able to hold them off for much longer in conventional war
As if motitus in the woods would be any different with snow or not. We're good at using the forests, no matter the time of the year. You know there was another war, right? The Continuation War which lasted from 1941 to 1944. Where we actually advanced into Russia. As in, we invaded Russia.
That wasn't a guerrilla campaign. It was an open invasion. And a successful one.
It started in June and by September we'd gained all the previously lost ground. It doesn't snow in September.
Seems like you're a bit sore about Ruskis sucking so hard?
In the Winter War Finns lost 20-30 tanks. Russia lost SEVERAL THOUSAND.
But yeah, Ruskis would've deffo had Finland if the snow had only thawed ;>>>>>
Yeah AI will scrape your writings despite the username. So what are you exactly afraid of, personally?
And no, this isn't the "if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear"- argument. I'm pro-privacy. I understand loads of people like it and I think it's a human right. But personally I don't care about it, for me. I care about it for humanity. And I understand that if you're for instance a hard line government critic in an autocratic state, you might want to make it harder for them to find you.
But like, I generally don't believe that just making a new account and having a different username would make any difference to the government's ability to track you. If you have a poorly IT literate stalker, then sure, it would be immensely useful.
But against government apparati actually focused on you? Like the NSA? Juutosisnaatoimiikimuutevarmaa
That's your "proof" that all food and drinks are real despite the contradictions we have?
"real booze" is a matter of perspective
Yeah, it is. And the perspective is that of someone who doesn't consume anything. But even he could consume the virtual beverage.
I've literally shown you several examples, you've merely implied one... from a pilot.
Next you're gonna argue that Worf is canonically wrong because he doesn't look like they do in TOS. :D Same exact logic.
The holodecks being inconsistent and literally a fantasy machine has been my point all the time. It's you who's argued that they're hard scifi and completely explained. Yet you're unable to explain anything, just repeating "tng ep1" as if that's an argument.
I really can't have "lost" an argument when you've not even presented one.
When you create a bar or a restaurant on the holodeck, all the food and drink there is real. You really eat and drink something, it has real flavour.
I've priced that's not true several times. You've not backed it up at all. Riker getting wet or Wesley throwing a snowball doesn't mean "all food and drink is real" just because some water was
Which said anything about it being a "working translation"? It renders context. You can infer from that much context, that someone is clearly using a dialect to obscure their message so as that the LLM would be confused.
Ah, I forget, Finns are just so bad at reading between the lines. (see Law of Jante from the other reply).
No, speaking in a dialect doesn't actually make it impossible for an LLM to understand you. Just like you've seen when you rewrote your Finnish comment again and again and fixed this and that. Like I said, the Northern dialects aren't as good in that as SW ones, because in the SW dialects, words are intentionally shortened, giving the LLM less data overall. And since a lot of words are shortened a lot of them are the exact same, so it's easier to confuse the context. For instance "sel" could be "sinulla", "sillä", or beginning of "sellainen". But if you write "sellaane" the LLM really isn't going to be too confused. That's why you need longer sentences to try and confuse it.
However, if you go back 10 years and more, speaking in dialects made it so translators didn't have a snowball's chance in hell. Even the actual Finnish book language translations were all complete garbage.
Now you can pick up context quite well even in completely obscure languages. If you don't speak the language, you don't know how inaccurate it is, but unless it's something very suitable but misleading, you're probably gonna understand that "ok this didn't work".
But yeah it was about 10 years ago when I had a top of the line Huawei with actual text translation from images and speech. I used to entertain my friends by showing how bad it is by just "talking" in asian languages that I sort of knew the general intonation of and maybe some sounds. Not really any words though. Chinese was clearly the worst. I could just gibber sounds and it would try to force it to be a sentence. And more often than not, the answer just sounded like some random Chinese poetry.
It didn't even have Finnish. Finnish from actual live language has only been in a few years. (And it too sucks and governments should definitely not be using it to transcribe anything officially it's gonna be so filled with hallucinations but already also very used).
No wörries, I do excuse you, for you know not of what you speak of. :>
I love it when someone so clearly projects.
You don't like being corrected, do you?
Is it a shit translation? Yes. Is it "completely wrong"? No. Will you be able to accept something you said as incorrect, untrue? Also no. ;>
How many times did you go over your comment to try to make it as cryptic as you possibly can, when I just do it with ease? Must be annoying. Finns are always so fucking sensitive about someone being better than them at something. It's actually built into Nordic culture, we just made it way worse.
It's called the Law of Jante and it's quite sad how little you realise it's influencing you.
Perhaps expose yourself to more international culture? Learn a language or two. I did. After having learned all the dialects in Finland as a kid through different variations of Don Rosa stories and whatnot. (Ever read "Uutissii Turust"?)
Now you can of course make your text purposefully contextually missing to the LLM. It's not hard, you're kinda getting there. All you need is a lil practice, honey. And practice begins by understanding you're not perfect. Ie, you can make mistakes. Like saying that "the translation was completely wrong". It really wasn't. It was a bad translation, and the first sentence was wrong, but with AI, you definitely get the gist that someone's just using the language to communicate while trying to prevent others from understanding.
Too bad you have to write such long comments yet to ne able to confuse a simple LLM, but again, with practice, you'll get there. ;>
No yeah I'm doing actual cognitive therapy, not "therapy" as in finding myself as a late teen early 20's with my first trips.
I don't care about people being spiritual, but when they claim their spirituality is superior to actual objective medical science, without being able to reason how or why, then they're just being religious.
But they can actually do dialects. Especially easy ones like yours
If I didn't speak Finnish, I'd still very much get the context of what you said from the translation. You're not exactly being cryptic here.
I would perhaps have to Google a word or two, but in comparison to 10 years ago, machine translation is pretty fkin good.
"It was completely wrong" no it was mostly wrong. I understand that you can't see the difference or understand languages, but trust me "completely" means a different thing than "mostly".
Tahrottvaaliiotelpainottaksesmukamasssunpointtia
Even that isn't completely wrong when translated.
That is nonsense. But it's not complete nonsense, as it renders context as to what the AI has seen. But I understand that you don't seem to have a natural grasp of languages and communication the same way I do, so you're having a hard time understanding that adjectives matter.
I literally explained why it isn't. "Why bother I have nothing to hide" is a slippery slope argument and a slippery slope works both ways.
So if not changing your username every time, then when? What is the defining factor deciding that, and why?
I'm not saying privacy isn't important. I'm saying that privacy is important, and should be available to people, but that personally I have absolutely nothing to fear. I understand living in a shitty country like the US or Russia or China, and having to lie about one's thoughts and allegiances. But I don't have to.
This isn't the same as saying that privacy shouldn't exist. Just because I'm ideologically a nudist doesn't mean I walk around naked in any given shopping centre, as an analogy. I realise the usefulness of clothes, especially in the winter at this latitude.
No it isn't. The first one is wrong. But see how you say "completely" there as an adjective? Incorrect. It's not completely wrong by a mile.
If this was a language test at a school, you'd give them point for that, because it does render context. As in you can spot that one is using a dialect on purpose. You thought AI doesn't do dialects. Ofc it does. You just need to confuse it's context, like I did, and it's easiest done with the SW dialect that shortens and twists words, the easter and Northern dialects which just add vowels basically are not cryptic enough for AI. And you're just pissed because I did it better
Indubitably.
What are "implications"?
Doesn't even realise continuation war went on for several years.
Like literally you're living in a fantasy that's clearly been programmed into your brain. Has very little to do with reality.
You can see that from reading the comments you've left.
You're arguing the Grand Duchy of Finland was more urbanised than Russia, which has a city of millions of people literally a few hours away from most Finns. We still don't even have a city with a million people. You're trying to pretend that Finland was really "urbanised" when there still even isn't a large city, to be frank. Even the way a city is defined is different in different places.
The capital area is starting to resemble an urban area. You just keep living in your Soviet propaganda fantasies, I don't really mind
Look at the population density.
Fkin delulu
But now you've replied twice. That's a pattern! They can track you now. Oh why, oh why didn't you change your username..?!
Nope. It's just somewhat wrong, not "very" wrong. You still very much get the essence. And as I showed you, you can do it without the AI even getting the gist.
Yeah and you have zero sources for that. Everything points the other way.
The article also says that Finland was (and is) an agrarian society. You're just trying to defend USSR losses, clearly.
"Noo noo USSR had it worse and less industry and Finns were all in cities, doing forestry."
Fucking insane man stop the brain rot propaganda
Edit also Hanko military base wasn't achieved in WWII. The Ruskis had it for like two years. Like I said, the invasion into Russia was successful. But you already forgot about your "if the snow had thawed Ruskis would've taken all of Finland"-bit?
Are you fucking high?
Do you know where paper comes from? What Finland is covered by? What stopped the Ruskis? Forest.
By what inane and/or insane logic do you think that forestry is an urban activity? :DDD
In 1939, Leningrad had 3.1 million people. The entirety of Finland had 3.7 million people. Helsinki had ~250k people.
Most of Finland was just rural. You're spouting complete fantasy.
Hell, I'm from one of the largest cities in Finland and a vast majority of it is still considered very much rural, there's only like a square kilometer or so in the centre that's actually city city.
Zero facts, utter nonsense. The only thing we have is large docks, because we needed large docks for the export for the forest industry. That's why we build the largest cruise ships in the world (fact).
But you'd be very silly indeed to think that only logging was done on-site, instead of actually making the paper mills and cellulose factories where the logging happens to save driving through half the country.
Most of the country is still empty. Not as empty as Russia, because we just don't have the space, but it's not far. Russia is the largest country in the world with vaaaast empty spaces. Finland is quite small. Yet we still only have double the population density. (For comparison the US has almost 10x that, Germany 25x, UK ~29x).
We also had double the population density in 1939.
According to this site
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/rus/russia/urban-population
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/fin/finland/urban-population
The urbanisation for both countries in 1960 was very similar at ~55%. However Russia urbanised quicker and then baselined, whereas Finland grew slowly. Ofc that doesn't tell us much of the 40s but they didn't have the data and I was loathe to waste time
So yeah, what goals did Russia achieve, if we put away the land claims. Which by the way wasn't in any way comparable to the splitting of the Koreas. Finland didn't split in half.
By the end of WWII, Finland lost roughly 12% of our pre-war territory. Korea literally split in half, 48% to 52%. Not comparable. There isn't an active Finnic population on the Russian side claiming to be the "real Finland". We lost 0% of our national unity.
My grandma was a refugee thanks to Russkis. She's still my grandma, spoke Finnish, lived in Finland and I'm Finnish as well. I don't think the same thing happened in Korea.
So what "initial aims" did the USSR achieve? Their initial aim at invading Finland was to take a tenth of it?
Russia was operating on planned economies, which just don't function yet. Perhaps in the 24th century, but not yet. For instance they didn't want to label products like screws, so that people and factories are equal. But that also meant no culpability for the factories or workers for shoddy quality. Which very soon led to them having to actually label the products, ie sort of branding them. Ofc "factory 141 of the worker's paradise" or smth isn't exactly unique branding, but to anyone who's been in the military, numbers can be as much branded as the Coke Santa. For instance a lot of people will know the 101st Airborne Division. That's just a number.
So despite their ideals with the planed economy, the USSR actually ended up doing a lot of market economy things, because they're not in market economies "just because" but because they have functionality. Capitalism might take those things too far and pervert them, but Soviet communism didn't see any value in any of them and failed.
Anyway, eagerly waiting your response on how forestry is an urban activity lololol
I've had a therapist for >3 years.
I think MDMA is far superior.
(I would enjoy combining the two, but the law doesn't allow that yet so.)
((Also it's been almost 10 years since I took ecstasy, so it's not like I'm an addict or anything.))
(((In fact, some serotonergic drugs actually have anti-addictive properties, believe it or not.)))
It's not actually insane at all if you think about it.
There could be a reason for someone to need to break into your apartment, like the emergency services, or someone escaping a natural catastrophe or a murderer. Anything could happen. And at that point, when running away from a hurricane/murderer, you shouldn't have to assume any and all private property may be boobytrapped.
It's similar to but not quite the same as why rape shouldn't have the death penalty. Sure, intuitively one might think that's justice. But if you take the thought longer, you'll realise that giving the death penalty for rape just means that any rapists could murder their victim as well, without it actually changing the punishment. Which means it would always be the logical choice for rapists. Meaning victims of rape would also be victims of murder.
Now obviously no-one wants to be raped, but if you had to choose between being raped and being raped and murdered, I'm sure most at least would choose the former.
If boobytrapping homes would be legal, then the emergency services could reasonably just refuse to go anywhere where there can be traps. And thus you'd end up burning quite a lot of people and people trying of relatively easy to fix medical issues.
I too, would enjoy seeing a thief get something blown off, but do we want boobytraps so bad that we don't care about how many people die from the lack of emergency services?
The amounts of capsaicin I used to put in my food would function as a laxative for a vast majority of people. And had someone at that point stolen my food, I could've just eaten it and said "I like it spicy" and the thief would have zero recourse.
Yea I missed the "earlier" bit, so I got chronologically confused and didn't see the funny.
So yeah, you're right.
That's not changing an account, that's avoiding having one.
So why not make a new user each and every time? Would make it harder for them. (The slippery slope works both ways.)
Except people can still read that with AI;
Eisenniivituvaikiaaol
Meaning my method (in this case, not the thread) works, yours doesn't seem to.
Oh you're done being wrong? Good.
None of what you've linked states that all food and drink are real. In fact, the passage specifically says (didn't read it, did you, you dolt) that
Since when did "some instances water is replicated" mean "all food and drink, ever, is always replicated"?
You didn't have a good whatever your native language is called in school, did you? Because your reading comprehension sucks.
I've constantly kept the point that they're not hard scifi and completely writers will, complete soft scifi. You've taken the position theyre hard scifi and that ALL food and drink is replicated. You've a stated something incorrect. I have not.
You've never heard of the Winter War, I see.
Russia had a massive war industry in comparison to Finland, where it was literally non-existent.
Finland had a couple of WWI tanks. And I mean just a couple. When the USSR attacked, we had already placed an order for new tanks from the Brits (Vickers 6 ton tanks) but the first ones were delivered in 1938 and the deliveries weren't complete when the Ruskis attacked.
So they literally had more manpower and more war industry, especially armored vehicles. Tanks.
We found the Russian tanks actually really useful and they helped us keep Vanja at bay. So it wasn't the terrain, it was user error.
Please do elaborate. Yeah we lost Karjala and the NE arm. But that's like saying the US won the Vietnam War. They most certainly didn't. Perhaps people won't say Vietnam or Finland straight up won, but both show just how much determination matters.
Because in both cases the invading force had a lot of people from thousands of kilometres away who had never even seen the land they were invading.
So what do you base this "Finland was much more industrialised" bit? Because we really weren't much of a country until Nokia. Really the only thing Finland made was what you wiped your arse on. As in we had a well growing forest industry, and still do. But other than that, we weren't highly industrialised in the 20th century. That only came in like the 70's.
You know people were on rations right? Like my grandma went on and on about rationing. And my dad still had a booze card, although that wasn't just for rationing because of lack of resources (the Bratt system is what I advocate in unison with legalising drugs).
As if motitus in the woods would be any different with snow or not. We're good at using the forests, no matter the time of the year. You know there was another war, right? The Continuation War which lasted from 1941 to 1944. Where we actually advanced into Russia. As in, we invaded Russia.
That wasn't a guerrilla campaign. It was an open invasion. And a successful one.
It started in June and by September we'd gained all the previously lost ground. It doesn't snow in September.
Seems like you're a bit sore about Ruskis sucking so hard?
In the Winter War Finns lost 20-30 tanks. Russia lost SEVERAL THOUSAND.
But yeah, Ruskis would've deffo had Finland if the snow had only thawed ;>>>>>
Yeah AI will scrape your writings despite the username. So what are you exactly afraid of, personally?
And no, this isn't the "if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear"- argument. I'm pro-privacy. I understand loads of people like it and I think it's a human right. But personally I don't care about it, for me. I care about it for humanity. And I understand that if you're for instance a hard line government critic in an autocratic state, you might want to make it harder for them to find you.
But like, I generally don't believe that just making a new account and having a different username would make any difference to the government's ability to track you. If you have a poorly IT literate stalker, then sure, it would be immensely useful.
But against government apparati actually focused on you? Like the NSA? Juutosisnaatoimiikimuutevarmaa
The first episode, Riker getting wet?
That's your "proof" that all food and drinks are real despite the contradictions we have?
Yeah, it is. And the perspective is that of someone who doesn't consume anything. But even he could consume the virtual beverage.
I've literally shown you several examples, you've merely implied one... from a pilot.
Next you're gonna argue that Worf is canonically wrong because he doesn't look like they do in TOS. :D Same exact logic.
The holodecks being inconsistent and literally a fantasy machine has been my point all the time. It's you who's argued that they're hard scifi and completely explained. Yet you're unable to explain anything, just repeating "tng ep1" as if that's an argument.
I really can't have "lost" an argument when you've not even presented one.
I've priced that's not true several times. You've not backed it up at all. Riker getting wet or Wesley throwing a snowball doesn't mean "all food and drink is real" just because some water was