There’s a "the’ in the quote.

The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

>>> sorted(set("The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog"))[2:]
['a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'g', 'h', 'i', 'j', 'k', 'l', 'm', 'n', 'o', 'p', 'q', 'r', 's', 't', 'u', 'v', 'w', 'x', 'y', 'z']

Installed 22.04 few months ago, did my configs, and then subscribed to Ubuntu Pro (free for five devices). Now I can enjoy a stable experience for at least a decade.

semen

They said competition, not alternatives. As things are right now, and knowing people, not just trying to make a technical point, Firefox is the only competition.

not a fan of that font, but cool setup

I doubt Microsoft is that dumb, though.

Having to learn a programming language to get things working there makes it a distribution only for nerds.

0.25 / 0.50 = (0.25 * 4) / (0.50 * 4) = 1 / 2 = 0.50

https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/9vztge/wizard_of_the_internet_king_of_the_data_centers/ https://www.reddit.com/user/bluedude54/submitted/ proof: https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/5vvy64/my_version_of_kitty_roo/

I actually meant Group Policy Editor. Sometimes I make mistakes like that. I will not dive into how precisely I made the mistake.

Coming to your second point, of course it is vulnerable, but I meant it in a practical sense. I am not here to waste time debating, so I am leaving it at that.

[—]

I don’t think they would make a model like this uncensored.

It was a decent experience, but it had too many features to meet my taste. I like basic things. Their automatic timer detection supports a lot of formats, but it doesn’t support something like “in 5 minutes,” but it does support “in 5 hours/months/weeks.”. Too bad, I frequently forget to do things throughout the day, so I have trained myself to set up quick-to-do tasks to remind myself a few minutes later. But doing it an hour later is asking for too much.

It’s available on smart phones, but you have to install it as a PWA.

stract.com has their own indexer, fully open-source.

We have estimated the carbon footprint of our AI chatbot and according to our first estimates it does not significantly increase the overall carbon footprint of Ecosia. The estimate takes into account that Ecosia searches are already 200% carbon negative,as we produce twice as much energy as is consumed by our search engine. We are currently working with two universities to refine our carbon footprint assessment.

Unfortunately the more important issue is that the leading language AI model providers are still not transparent about the energy consumption of their models, so without this clarity we can only make rough estimations of our impact. We will continue to monitor our energy usage and urge leading AI companies to do the same and be transparent about their impact.

(https://ecosia.helpscoutdocs.com/article/534-ecosia-chat-ai)

I am not against it. I don’t want to miss out on AI to support this search engine. It’s quite helpful to me, and I assume many others. I think this search engine should compete with other search engines so that more users use it. I am already a fan of their Ecosia Chat; the interface is fast and the responses are even faster. Bing Chat is just awful; it’s slow both in terms of interface and text generation

You’re getting caught up on phrasing and nothing else. Let it go. “Intelligent design” as an ideology and describing something as “intelligently designed” are not the same thing.

They are different things, and I am not taking the phrasing in an ideological context. Something being intelligently designed and just being designed, are not the same thing either. Your previous reply elaborates the phrasing of yours that I quoted in a broader way that only you can come up with, because the phrasing simply had an entirely different meaning. I am also uninterested in having any discussion with somebody who throws up words on the internet, expects to be taken seriously, but is bereft of the mental competence to even phrase their words correctly.

It’s an observation of similarity. Both beliefs presume some kind of external motive force behind the universe’s existence. I never made any argument about the intent or abstract values of whatever that thing may or may not be or how it perceives the universe it “created.”

The universe just getting created by an external force, and your phrasing that it is “intelligently designed” has no similarity. You are just escaping from what you had stated. You yourself assumed that the core similarity is intelligent design. There is nothing to observe here. The only one lacking in reading comprehension is you, or you are probably trying to find the little ounces of loopholes you think you can find because you’re just so disappointed by your thirty-day-old opinion but you also just can’t admit to it, or whatever else the situation may be.

Simulation theory does not share any core similarity with creationism. Just simulating a universe does not mean it is intelligently designed.

The core similarity of both beliefs is that the universe is intelligently designed

The hypothesis of simulation does not address intelligence. Intelligence abstractly is something that exists inside the simulation, it may value nothing outside the simulation. You thesis is lacking evidence.