Here’s the thing, if there was drugs on the boat, killing them still isn’t ok. But no, we don’t even “know” if they are telling the truth about the drugs either. We have no idea why they want these people killed. We have to “trust” them… I don’t.
Ok, so it’d be like if a wikipedia page about jesus said he was “our lord and saviour” instead of saying “some people consider him to be their lord and saviour”. A page for “Lord and saviour” as a phrase might still list jesus as one possible link.
Basically taking a first person position on it, instead of a third person position. Like grokipedia is writing from first person perspective that Hitler is the fuhrer, which when you consider that it is a significant departure from the wikipedia article, as only 0.01% of the content of grokipedia is, suggests it’s a hand crafted article written by someone that would refer to hitler personally as the leader, and not as someone some people used to call “the leader”.
There is a reason it was edited immediately as soon as people noticed, due to how bad it looked once pointed out.
Only his followers actually use(d) that title for him, everyone else when using that word about him, would say it’s the title his followers call(ed) him. Like how wikipedia is using it. Grok is just using it as his title, like a follower would.
You can think of it kind of like “dear leader” in north korea. Anyone calling him that outside of north korea is at least doing it sarcastically or using air quotes. This would be like if the news called him that with a sincere reverent tone.
To be fair, the wikipedia article says he was called that by the people that followed him. It never calls him that itself.
The grokipedia article, just calls him that.
A subtle, but very important, distinction.
Not to mention the other important part where grok buries any mention of the holocaust 13000 words in, where as it’s in the intro on wikipedia.
Keep in mind, by default, grokipedia started with a copy of what wikipedia said, so any changes are what was hand-edited on purpose.
The changes speak to what they wanted it to say and do differently.
Umm, does he not realise we would also want those pedophiles in jail too?
Like sure ‘every pedophile’ is better, but half is a good start, we’ll get the rest in due time. Stuff is constantly leaking.
Is that not what the other commenters here are arguing? Cuz even when I ask them if that’s what they are saying they keep answering like it is what they are saying, that I must not have gone to an american school. No, I didn’t go to an american school, is it really that bad there? Like Canada is right next to the states, it can’t be that much worse just crossing one border.
I don’t get what you are saying? The kids didn’t do anything wrong? Or they shouldn’t also be in trouble? I don’t get why everyone is saying the kids should be allowed to steal?
Yes I have been to high school, no kids didn’t steal food from the teachers in my high school. But even if they did, they would have been wrong to do so…
Is it really a common thing nowadays for kids to steal from teachers? And not considered wrong when they do?
I really thought the reason it didn’t mention the trouble the kids got in was just cuz including underage children in news articles has to be so redacted as to essentially be pointless unless they are the main focus of the article. Not that they are considered to have not done anything wrong nowadays.
I’m not arguing that she wasn’t wrong, I state multiple times that she was wrong. He’s arguing the kids aren’t wrong at all. I maintain the kids also did something wrong.
So, it’s your opinion that the kids did nothing wrong by stealing and eating the teachers food? They aren’t even partly responsible?
So the parents get their kids home and they are ok with the kids stealing the teachers food, the teacher shouldn’t have had food in the classroom since kids are allowed to just steal whatever they want.
Eating a parents food is a little more understandable, though still not something a kid should do without permission. Eating a teachers food, is down right actual stealing. It is different even if the teacher is supposed to act like a parent, though I haven’t heard of that being the case, if anything teachers are restricted from acting like parents to the children.
They may have some legal burden, but it doesn’t mean it should be treated exactly as if they are the parents in every situation.
But I did say it was fair that the teacher got in trouble, just thought it odd initially that it doesn’t mention the kids repercussions, til I thought about the hurdles involved in writing that bit of the article and assumed they just didn’t bother.
While I definitely get that she shouldn’t have left them sitting out, is it not the fault of the kids randomly eating other peoples food without permission that the food ended up being much more “not for them” than it already would have been?
Well, I suppose just cuz the article doesn’t mention the kids getting in their fair share of trouble doesn’t mean they didn’t, including underage kids in a news article is a hassle and barely worth doing when they are the main or only part of a story.
He is a weird guy, but so far only weird in the normal way, it would be a surprise if there is any merit.
She already has many contradicting statements on record about it. Hard to say what actually happened so far, and we’ll only know if it’s pursued, publicly. But there is a decent chance it will go away quietly since she has already torpedoed her chances of it going in her favour. And Renner probably doesn’t want to publicly shame her, so it’ll only go to court if she really wants it to at this point.
Edit: more info exists now. Haven’t updated my assessment, this was based primarily on what was in the article at the time.
Zhou tells PEOPLE in a statement she included Renner in her projects “because I thought and promised to me we were in an evolving love relationship.”
That right there really discredits her claims… if she thought they were in a relationship, why would the messages be considered unsolicited by her?
Kind of seems like she got the wrong impression and then got embarrassed/defensive about it and escalated stuff.
They probably did get in text arguments, and if any of what she is saying turns out to be true, it would be nice to at least see context. The ICE comment is a weird thing to be fabricated, but I could see it being something that was either a knee-jerk reaction, or potentially blown out of proportion. Either way, would really help to see context.
For some reason, they couldn’t find what a ‘member’ of Antifa looked like.
Peaceful protest is what is meant, instead of violent protest. Peaceful doesn’t mean doing nothing.
It’s just the hyperbole. It wouldn’t matter which specific word they used if it more closely matched the level of intensity of what actually happened.
In this instance, even a cliché, overused term like ‘jabs’ would be fine.
I would imagine it’s the same scale, just a base 10 feet instead of 20 feet. So in yours you would see at 24 feet what the average person would see at 20 feet. Assuming there is a linear relation, and no circumstantial drop off.
Also, usually when people use the term “perfect” vision, they mean 20/20, is that the case for you too. Another term for that is average vision, with people that have better vision than that having “better than average” vision.
And you get a TV small enough that it doesn’t suit that purpose? Looks like 75 inch to 85 inch is what would suit that use case. Big, but still common enough.
If they would have focussed on making a good place first, and then corrupting it with commercialism, they could have at least boiled a few of us frogs. But you can’t start with the commercialism foot forward and the quality foot behind and expect to make a place worth visiting.