What matters is the signals she gave him and how he read and responded to them.
If she gave signals of "please leave me alone" then whether he's creepy or not depends on how he responded, regardless of how he looks.
Him being a positive and personable presence near her over a stretch of time, especially if she gave signals of being in the neutral-to-positive range towards him, is fine. The most important thing is that if he eventually shot his shot - and the response was "no thank you" - that he accept this answer gracefully.
Lots of women actually prefer to meet guys through their social circle because it's an easier way to meet guys who their friends can give their own impressions about and who are less likely to be assholes. It sounds like it turned out well here, although we're missing a lot of information.
Funny how "self awareness" has two meanings here. It's the essence of what makes humans the smartest animals, but the problem you're referring to—lack of self reflection—is one of the most common problems amongst people today. Common sense ain't so common.
Like most popular social media sites, you usually won't see very valuable discussion in the comments, at least in my experience. It's mostly for people to post news, research, and so on, and follow the big names or organizations in their field.
Most of the valuable information is diffused via posts but I do put a bit of time and effort into trying to filter out all the crap posts like memes, the faux inspirational stuff, self-aggrandizing nonsense, etc.
Okay, and if it happened years ago but the victim is now 14 instead of 6 and they're still in the same environment as their abuser?
"Giving (potential) victimizers a line of support via organized religion to try to help them not commit sex crimes against children (in the future, or again)" is not a good argument because it has been shown time and time again that religious institutions cannot be trusted to reliably take the correct course of action and be accountable. That is the role of the government and law enforcement. It is unacceptable to put the feelings of adults over the safety of children and other victims, and organized religions have a tendency to protect those with power and influence over protecting the vulnerable.
So let me get this straight. You're saying that a member of clergy should be allowed to hear an adult say, "I molested that child last week" and not have to report it?
Is that what you are saying? I want to hear it from you straight.
Sure, in the short term. I've switched to DDG and I'm not getting another Pixel when I need a new phone, and hoards of tech savvy people are feeling the same way. Dissatisfaction is causing them to lose customers and talent.
Eventually, they'll start feeling it in their bottom line. And by then it might be too late to change course.
I recognize that my intrusive thoughts are my own, but this term existing is helpful because: 1) some people incorrectly believe that thoughts imply a desired outcome, and this term helps explain and describe that this isn't always the case and 2) it's a meaningful and useful way of categorizing these types of thoughts for the purposes of psychology, psychiatry, understanding ourselves better, etc.
In cases like severe OCD, classifying intrusive thoughts as such could help someone understand and cope with disturbing thoughts and develop subsequent coping mechanisms. Not everyone's the same and some terms can be helpful.
what in particular shows that Gary Marcus is uniformed? I dislike him because he's dogmatic and petty but I haven't seen a specific thing he's been wrong about, but I'd love examples.
Intent is part of it as well. If you have too many people who want to use your service, you're not being attacked, you have an actual shortage of ability to service requests and need to adjust accordingly.
I'm going to use those things as answer machines and you can't stop me.
Jokes aside, I always validate what chatbots tell me, not even just important things. I use GPT-4 for work and 90% of the time it can show me how to use very specific functions in complex ways, but yesterday (for the first time in awhile) it made up a function that didn't exist. To its credit, I said, "Are you sure about [function]?" and it said, "I'm sorry, I got confused. That function doesn't exist. However, look into X, Y, Z for further resources" and I did and they were the correct things to look into.
The best ones can literally write pretty good code, and explain any concept on the Internet to you that you ask them to. If you don't understand a specific thing about their explanation, they can add onto their explanation, and they can respond in the style you want (explain as if I'm ten, explain as if I'm an undergrad, etc).
I use it literally every day for work in a somewhat niche field. I don't really agree that it's a "parlor trick".
What matters is the signals she gave him and how he read and responded to them.
If she gave signals of "please leave me alone" then whether he's creepy or not depends on how he responded, regardless of how he looks.
Him being a positive and personable presence near her over a stretch of time, especially if she gave signals of being in the neutral-to-positive range towards him, is fine. The most important thing is that if he eventually shot his shot - and the response was "no thank you" - that he accept this answer gracefully.
Lots of women actually prefer to meet guys through their social circle because it's an easier way to meet guys who their friends can give their own impressions about and who are less likely to be assholes. It sounds like it turned out well here, although we're missing a lot of information.
Funny how "self awareness" has two meanings here. It's the essence of what makes humans the smartest animals, but the problem you're referring to—lack of self reflection—is one of the most common problems amongst people today. Common sense ain't so common.
Here are factors that might commonly be used to provide evidence for intent to eat:
Storing the body in a way that preserves it in ways appropriate for consumption but not medical use
Owning implements used specifically for the consumption of the target creature (e.g. a carving knife for a turkey, lobster crackers/pokers, etc.)
Possession of ingredients habitually consumed with the target creature
Communications or behavior signaling an intent to eat the target creature (this one is kind of obvious)
Carnivorous character/personality tendencies (potentially provided by character witnesses before or against the defendant)
Interesting idea that intent would be such an important part of their legal system.
Like most popular social media sites, you usually won't see very valuable discussion in the comments, at least in my experience. It's mostly for people to post news, research, and so on, and follow the big names or organizations in their field.
Most of the valuable information is diffused via posts but I do put a bit of time and effort into trying to filter out all the crap posts like memes, the faux inspirational stuff, self-aggrandizing nonsense, etc.
Yeah I don't care. I'm not here to make exceptions for pedophiles and abusers.
Okay, and if it happened years ago but the victim is now 14 instead of 6 and they're still in the same environment as their abuser?
"Giving (potential) victimizers a line of support via organized religion to try to help them not commit sex crimes against children (in the future, or again)" is not a good argument because it has been shown time and time again that religious institutions cannot be trusted to reliably take the correct course of action and be accountable. That is the role of the government and law enforcement. It is unacceptable to put the feelings of adults over the safety of children and other victims, and organized religions have a tendency to protect those with power and influence over protecting the vulnerable.
So let me get this straight. You're saying that a member of clergy should be allowed to hear an adult say, "I molested that child last week" and not have to report it?
Is that what you are saying? I want to hear it from you straight.
These are great arguments I wasn't aware of, but also, greening up a skyline is a very pleasant idea imo.
Sure, in the short term. I've switched to DDG and I'm not getting another Pixel when I need a new phone, and hoards of tech savvy people are feeling the same way. Dissatisfaction is causing them to lose customers and talent.
Eventually, they'll start feeling it in their bottom line. And by then it might be too late to change course.
I recognize that my intrusive thoughts are my own, but this term existing is helpful because: 1) some people incorrectly believe that thoughts imply a desired outcome, and this term helps explain and describe that this isn't always the case and 2) it's a meaningful and useful way of categorizing these types of thoughts for the purposes of psychology, psychiatry, understanding ourselves better, etc.
In cases like severe OCD, classifying intrusive thoughts as such could help someone understand and cope with disturbing thoughts and develop subsequent coping mechanisms. Not everyone's the same and some terms can be helpful.
what in particular shows that Gary Marcus is uniformed? I dislike him because he's dogmatic and petty but I haven't seen a specific thing he's been wrong about, but I'd love examples.
Really neat that water can turn into a conductive metal at high enough pressures such as in the core of Neptune.
The fact that the effects of insane pressure on matter could get us closer to being able to generate fusion power is awesome and kind of scary.
Intent is part of it as well. If you have too many people who want to use your service, you're not being attacked, you have an actual shortage of ability to service requests and need to adjust accordingly.
I'm going to use those things as answer machines and you can't stop me.
Jokes aside, I always validate what chatbots tell me, not even just important things. I use GPT-4 for work and 90% of the time it can show me how to use very specific functions in complex ways, but yesterday (for the first time in awhile) it made up a function that didn't exist. To its credit, I said, "Are you sure about [function]?" and it said, "I'm sorry, I got confused. That function doesn't exist. However, look into X, Y, Z for further resources" and I did and they were the correct things to look into.
It's technically the GPT-4 base model but not the one running on ChatGPT.
Whatever fine-tuning OpenAI has done is leagues better than what Microsoft's team has done with Bing Chat.
The best ones can literally write pretty good code, and explain any concept on the Internet to you that you ask them to. If you don't understand a specific thing about their explanation, they can add onto their explanation, and they can respond in the style you want (explain as if I'm ten, explain as if I'm an undergrad, etc).
I use it literally every day for work in a somewhat niche field. I don't really agree that it's a "parlor trick".
Keep up the good work. You're a great avocate.
I was kind of with you until saying they're "being a fucking idiot."
Encouraging someone to help out? Great.
Browbeating someone for voicing the viewpoint or experience a lot of users are facing? We can do better than that.
I asked GPT-4 with the exact same wording and it answered:
"N/A"