That’s not what that page is saying. It’s terrifying enough that it’s a tie, there’s no need to make up fake polling information.

Yeah…? That’s my point

because the earth is big and you don’t have a hard drive big enough to store it locally?

you have what i would consider consistently bad takes on this subject

Ah, just saw a comment from OP claiming that Israel was doing “everything possible” to prevent civilian casualties, so yeah, bad take puts it pretty well. What bad faith bs

This is a decent explanation of gradient descent but I’m pretty sure the meme is referencing the color gradients often used to highlight when something is AI generated haha

is that the one that says “fuck the color blind” because if so hey!! that’s not nice

IntelliJ finds most uses in my experience unless you’re doing something weird with reflection or similar. And if it’s a public facing API only used by the library’s consumers…– it should be used in tests at the very least! Especially if it’s prone to regressions like the comment suggests

No usages

Okay, and they would argue that being progressive is never “right”. You refuse to acknowledge the fundamental flaw in your reasoning, which is that you are assuming a moral baseline that – while I’m sure is reasonable – simply not enough people share for it to be a given.

That is your standard, theirs is different. So how do you decide which is right?

There are unequivocable monsters in our society that should be exterminated

And who gets to decide who falls under that? If you ask former (and possibly future) president Trump, the left is “vermin” and immigrants “poison the blood”; his pick for VP is happy to sign off on progressives being called “unhuman”. Should these groups – in their view unequivocable monsters – be exterminated?

Which is what the original commenter already indicated they think as well.

They’ve already started:

I suppose that’s fair, but if you e.g. make a compelling counterpoint and the other person fixates on one small detail to derail the conversation, I think the people you can realistically reach will already be on your side, and anyone who wants to draw some kind of false equivalence between your respective positions wasn’t going to be convinced anyways.

It’s more nuanced than that of course, but in my experience that’s generally the way these things play out as the thread gets longer.

If someone is literally arguing in bad faith, what’s the point in engaging with them? There’s no way to persuade someone who doesn’t actually care about what they’re saying in the first place.

Imagine telling Palestinian civilians “maybe you live, maybe you don’t, it’s not a negotiation”

disgusting

So you’re using the Palestinian genocide as pretense to further an agenda completely unrelated to it, got it. If you actually cared, you would understand how effective this kind of dehumanization is in generating support for the murder of a people.

Trump literally used the word Palestinian as a derogatory insult in the debate, if that’s not enough for you to get the hint you are beyond help my guy