back when orkut was a thing, google did this one weekend with internal employees. some co-workers participated; unsurprisingly they all said it was _very_ disturbing.
if you're trying to assign fractions of correctness (huh?),
op said historian and tenured professor. and I suspect the ordering of the list on the site matters. so of the prominent, public things that Ben-Ghiat self-identifies as, commentator is the _least_ important.
I go where the argument takes me. Is it my fault that OP did not actually check the background of the person they were defending on ( apparently based on this fact alone ) purely political grounds? No, how dare I actually read the article and, the horror, look up the person at the center of attention. After all, I am not supposed to do that. Facts are evil. My eyes will deceive me as it is likely Russian propaganda.
What I am supposed to do is to blindly go all-in for defense/attack depending on whether it is my team or not my team? Sorry, I don't swing that way. I smack people as needed depending on how easily their argument could be defeated.. here it took a google search so I was being generous with a smack on the hand whack.
<< I suspect the ordering of the list on the site matters. so of the prominent, public things that Ben-Ghiat self-identifies as, commentator is the _least_ important.
How dare you assume the order of importance in which Ruth views herself? How dare you even assume there is an order? What if I suspect she is the believer in chaos and the order semi-randomly selected each day and rotated backwards for maximum confusion. Just as plausible as your half-baked explanation, but at least mine has the value of being entertaining.
In all seriousness, did you even THINK of asking her? Such a man thing to do.. explaining what SHE meant.
Stop. Own your approach. Good grief man, you act like your tactic is some sort of secret strategy, but it is obvious -- so why even try to deny it.
<< reply is weirdly bombastic and generally incoherent.
Bombast should not prevent you from being able to form an argument.
Incoherence would, but then it would make sense to point out something specific hang on. Otherwise, we are just putting random words together... you know.. like llm?
well, the first attempt was reckless because they didn't have enough altitude. the second attempt was with more altitude, ie. "driving with more caution"
fwiw, I tested this out as well by clicking open issue and uploading a file and then not actually submitting the issue. the file is still accessible 2 days later.
Just want to point out that GitHub removing the asset after 15 minutes is actually worse than leaving it. The least appetizing aspect of this for adversaries is that your payload is now forever available to anyone with the logs. If it were adversary’s choice (submit the issue and it stays, only draft the issue and it gets wiped, good riddance, a phenomenal c2 stager indeed!)
i'm not disagreeing with you that going from non-profit to for-profit should be challenged, but doesn't openai still maintain their non-profit? they just added a for-profit "arm" (whatever that means).
