Tarquinn2049

The chat bot just assumes it's in the context of active war. Not that there isn't even a war. There are no active combatants or "effectively surrendering" combatants. There is just people accused of a crime they may, or may not, be guilty of.... and missiles.

Even if it was in the context of a war it would be a crime, but there isn't even that context. It's murder, arguably worse than war crime, it's crime, and one of the worst crimes there is.

What does it say about stealing boats? Again without the context of being in a war...

If they would have focussed on making a good place first, and then corrupting it with commercialism, they could have at least boiled a few of us frogs. But you can't start with the commercialism foot forward and the quality foot behind and expect to make a place worth visiting.

Ok, so it'd be like if a wikipedia page about jesus said he was "our lord and saviour" instead of saying "some people consider him to be their lord and saviour". A page for "Lord and saviour" as a phrase might still list jesus as one possible link.

Basically taking a first person position on it, instead of a third person position. Like grokipedia is writing from first person perspective that Hitler is the fuhrer, which when you consider that it is a significant departure from the wikipedia article, as only 0.01% of the content of grokipedia is, suggests it's a hand crafted article written by someone that would refer to hitler personally as the leader, and not as someone some people used to call "the leader".

There is a reason it was edited immediately as soon as people noticed, due to how bad it looked once pointed out.

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.

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.

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.

Are guns working for the states?