I'm really wondering here. If you want people to actually like the game your forcing them to watch an advert on, is it really in your best interest to make the x as small as you possibly can? and likewise, do you need to force us to click said x multiple times? do you honestly think that this is how you get people to install and try games, or are the advert companies just using this to lie about the clickthrough rates?
I agree with your thionking, everyone is different and unique. I'm happy to hear you've found some basic things that work for you, good job! I do have very good routines, but at no point have they become "habit".
I think you've nailed it though. We are very well versed toward documenting the details or such atrocities; we don't pay the same tribute to the good done by humanity. And this is certainly evidence that just "letting loose" and AI without clear and static "morals" is a bad idea.
I have alarms. I feel this in my core though. I have very strict routines that I follow, but they sure as fuck aren't habbit's I have to watch the clock and get extremely anxious around the time I know I need to do things, all.the.things.
It's getting worse based on the feedback unfortunately, the need for safety and lack of meaningful deliberation towards how AI companies should operate and what should and should not be done has led Sam and co to be indesicive towards doing anything. Alongside the "morality" of the thing being hyjacked has lead to other AI's performing better... lead by x employees of OpenAI, with actual bound morals and not inherently relying on user input to train future models, this will be the path forward, this will lead to safe and controlled integration.
I guess at the core of this, we are afraid of ourselves. We are afraid that the worste of humanity outpaces the better parts, that the inputs and training aren't altruistic but are more pointedly "bad" or "wrong", and thus leading to "harmful", whether through misinformation, lies, or fabrications.
I hope we find a way to do better. I'm still excited for the future of AI, I mean crap, I'm closer to having a family doctor that's a robot then I am to a real human doctor.
I don't think the average user cares tbh. I have OpenSuSe, Fedora, Win 11, RHDesktop currently running. From an admin level though, so long as it's well documented, transparent, and standard packages are available and maintained, I'm happy to continue to learn and be adaptable
My last one was a bit confusing. Here's one
the word Helicopter is not as you'd think. Heli-copter.
The word is Helico, to mean spinning
and pter, as in feather, like pterodactyl
so the pronounciation is helico-ter.
P.S. I'm so sorry.
I apologize, I'm new and not very attentive. I do remember the logic however was unable to find the source. Your body heals approximately 10x slower than your tongue. The claim is that without naturally evolving to the state that both healed equally as fast as you've outlined. It's if by some miracle your body started to heal at the same rate, your body in it's current state would not be able to convert food to energy fast enough to maintain the level and speed of healing. And your caloric intake would need to (I can only assume) 10x what it currently is, and that's a lot of food. I'm sorry to hear of your ED, I trust you recognize I'm not attempting to be pedantic or triggering, I intended this to be as the title stated, a fun fact that people don't believe is true.
I did not realize there were inquiries: Please excuse me, I'm new.
Your tongue is the fastest healing organ in your entire body, it uses an excessive amount of energy in order to heal your tongue 10x faster than the rest of your body. If your entire body were to heal at this rate, with the amount that your skin naturally replaces itself, compimented with the increased demand, you would starve to death.
I was also not able to find a source for this. There was a source outlining and comparing the healing speed of the tongue by comparison to the body.
If your body healed as fast as your tongue you would starve to death.