Becoming famous and feeling cool for the first time in his short life. Whether that will br a fun memory in retrospect is yet to be seen.

Describing people as broadly good is both true and a useless generalisation, hard times can still push good people to do bad things.

Dont blame your goof on other people being stupid, own it.

The last step is laziness born of becoming jaded. Its easier to generalise, so people tell themselves it was the answer all along. Stupid trap, dont fall for it.

Men with sticks never legally allowed to buy guns, famously winners of the next war.

This is so dumb and exactly what I would imagine from Indiana. Everyone in here cheering it on is braindead.

Life is never as simple as people like this wish it was.

So, artificial?

Relatively heavy levels of indoctrination.

Its easy to indoctrinate people into something that is nice to believe ‘this is the greatest country in the world, anyone can become anything here’, what a lovely fantasy. Who wouldnt accept this falsehood when presented with it? Who would willingly reject it if they could easily lie to themselves instead.

Tbf, they are far from the only country that does this, its hard to distinguish why it can seem so much more prevalent in Americans.

You’re not disagreeing, thats exactly what they were saying, they just sounded less happy about it than you.

Im with you, I think people needed capitalism to literally slip it in dry before they’d wake up and see its an inherently broken system, particularly when allowed to run unchecked.

Probably easier than me explaining www.google.com/search?q=utmost+etymology

I think you misread me, that is the common theory yeah

Why would it be wandering around if it was stuck in a relatively small space? It can sit or lie down, being bipedal doesn’t mean it needs to be constantly standing or walking.

I looked into this afterward and there’s actually a study by Barrick and Showers (1999) estimating that a large tyrannosaur could consume 2 - 3 weeks’ worth of food in a single meal, and that’s before accounting for its existing fat reserves. Remember, a starving animal will burn through its fat reserves and eventually its muscle tissue before it dies, so at that size it’s potentially got significant runway.

There’s also Kleiber’s law, which says larger animals have proportionally lower energy requirements relative to their body mass. Obviously a rex would need an enormous amount of food in absolute terms, but that doesn’t mean it would actually need to eat particularly frequently. Throw that all together and i highly doubt a month would be enough to starve one to death.

Dehydration is a much better argument though, I’ll give you that. I’ve no idea how long a rex could survive without water, and I doubt anyone can reliably estimate it. I’d imagine that would kill it long before starvation did.

Although interestingly, the original scenario only says you’re provided with food, it doesn’t actually mention water for either of you.

But if it rained, water would pool in its footprints and you’d definitely be screwed.

Oddly enough, the larger an animal is, the less food it generally needs relative to its body mass. “Kleiber’s law” basically says that an animal’s energy requirements increase more slowly than its body mass. A rex would have had enormous absolute energy requirements, but could likely have survived considerably longer than a week without eating.

A predator like that probably won’t starve in a month. Its a bit hard to say, you could compare with a crocodile (larger ones can fast for 2 - 3 years) but they are cold blooded which is a huge metabolic advantage here.

Lions can go 2 weeks without eating, and are far smaller which means there’s less of them to waste away before they perish. A massive predator like a rex would having huge amounts of mass to lose before it died.

Chances are they probably only ate every 1 to 2 weeks by default. A month is not much of a stretch for it, so you likely fail.

Utmost*, for the sake of accuracy.

Those arent the only two options, holding grudges and repressing them, lmao.

You can let them go. Its concerning you dont seem to have believed that was an option.

Cogitate on the real value of pride, where its valuable and where its over-valued. There is a significant amount of column B.

Donnie did not invent this, hes just the latest and loudest.

The economy isnt going anywhere its just going into a recession again, nothing you havent seen before if you were born before the Bush administration.

The original point was that expanding data centres doesn’t disprove a big increase in efficiency per token. Usage, advsnced models/tokens per query and infrastructure can all grow at the same time as the energy required for an individual token falls. And thats an ongoing process.

Companies you know cutting token spend, you thinking ubiquitous AI adoption is unrealistic, and newer models using more tokens per query are all arguments about future/total demand. None of them actually tell us whether a token is dramatically cheaper or more energy efficient to produce than it was a year ago. Realistically thats a learning curve problem, if someone is throwing a basic question at a model far more complex than it needs they are creating the inefficiency and that needs to be made more obvious/streamlined.

I’ve not claimed demand had increased 900x. You inferred that from the existence of new data centres, which was the faulty bit of reasoning I was responding to in the first place.

Based on what rationale?