read the whole comment

What I said is that smart people can be convinced to move to another platform. Most of my friends are not technically inclined, but it was easy to make them use it, at least to chat with me.

What you did is change “smart people” with “people who already want to move”, which is not the same. You then said it’s not something you can choose (as you cannot choose to be rich). But I answered that you can actually choose your friends.

Never did I say people who are not interested in niche technologies are not smart. My statement can be rephrased in an equivalent statement “people who cannot be convinced to change are not smart”, and I stand to it.

Why are you friend with stupid people?

Just need to move everyone. Not that hard honestly, if you are around smart people

Sams everything

Probably an emergent structure out of a chain of thought

Using mainstream social media is literally agreeing to be constantly used as an advertisement optimization research subject

Very interesting. Fixing one of the most common flaws of LLMs. If you can force them to follow proper structure they can generate better batch of test data samples, correct mathematical proofs in Lean, proper conlang words and sentences, proper json output for latter use by another tools, and obviously correct code generation in a specific version of a programming language.

From latin: populus Rōmānus

In french could be peuple romain for example

I am non-american and pedantic though not pretentious, be it a counterexample *_*

People roman ?

Yeah I read it Pull request first time lmao

Depends where you’re from

To answer your question, It is safe to assume most people read the title and the abstract but don’t actually read the article

On what basis do you suppose one is worse than the other? I think both are

While you’re right. It would be better to say something like “I need it for my country” or “US needs it”. Since English doesn’t distinguish between inclusive and exclusive “we”, it can lead to the conclusion that the commenter supposes people reading their comment are from US as well.

Thanks !

You’re the one bringing a fact, you’re the one supposed to source it. Anyway, your source doesn’t talk about any increase of prevalence, how can we know there’s a crisis from your source? Could be just that we diagnose more cases these times (or even the same digits, since we don’t have evolution data in your source). Even worse: your source literally state Digital media as a means of preventing mental health issues by spreading educative content. Nowhere does your source state that digital media is THE cause of the young mental health “crisis”.

What does the PR acronym stand for ?

Why do US citizens think everyone on the internet is from their country ?

So you agree with some part ?