This place should burn too.

It's the only reasonable thing to do; the status quo is what's ridiculous.

What if there is simply nothing that can be done? I don't mean to sound defeatist, but what if there are some things that truly are like pandora's box. We can't put the lid back on. All we can do is educated people on how to use the tools correctly

>All we can do is educated people on how to use the tools correctly

This lives in opposition to the people who own the websites/apps goals. So it won't happen.

Your personal blog fucktrump.com is social media. I tipped the government about it so it can be correctly blocked and you punished with jail.

While we're architecting the lives of millions of strangers what other reasonable things would you personally like to disallow?

I'd love to arrest billionaires, but can we at least suggest some specific and resonable goals forst? Baby steps.

Eat the rich is a good mantra and banner, but not an action plan. Here in America we have at most 3 years of this left and at median 1 year (with a huge nebulous cloud based on the reaction to trying to seize power). There's a lot we can do to build up to the ultimate mantra.

I also start all of my prompts with "solve the halting problem."

Clang manages to have way more useful error messages despite not solving three halting problem. You don't need to solve the halting problem to have caught this problem. Even if you don't solve it for the general case of the halting problem, solving it here for a levels deep and then collapsing the levels would have stopped this problem in its tracks. Sure, someone could just come in and cause the bug at N+1 levels deep because you've only solved it at N, but you can write different tests to mitigate that problem in practice, despite not having infinity RAM *2+1 to solve the general case of the halting problem.

Hilariously, the halting problem has been written in enough of the LLM training data that it can identify some cases where the code won't terminate.

That's not a purity test, it's just math.

Curious how it was a vote for trump and not harris. If harris had won, would a 3rd party vote have been for harris?

Because if that is true, you're re-writing the rules of your "personal voter math" to fit your narrative, and if it isn't true, your "personal voter math" === your opinion, which isn't really useful.

They edited the post, it used to say OP was a fascist for voting third party.

Yes

Ok, so it just means "worded with AI", no relation to how much thinking went in

Anyone interested in a subject can, if they wish, ask an AI about it and get an answer. Your deep conversation with an AI is something fun and insightful only to yourself. You're welcome to do it, but don't pretend it has meaning to anyone else, because if they want to get the same insight on a topic they can do it themselves for the same amount of effort (none).