wholookshere

I’m not sure you understood mine.

When you invade another country, expect that country to attack you in your territory too.

I said I don’t see why I valid target would be made invalid just because it’s inside Russia.

Then you went on about children’s hospitals, which you know, are not valid targets.

What?

That’s the entire point. They haven’t been allowed to hit valid Russian targets inside Russia. That’s what they’ve been given permission to do.

You’re the one brining children hospitals into this.

When the other territory is actively invading mine, no I don’t see how territory makes another otherwise valid target not valid.

100% of Russians invading Ukraine came from Russia.

That’s still a lot of words to say nothing of actual value. Are you sure you’re not a. LLM?

For the record, it doesn’t matter if my ideas are better, it’s yours has to be better than the currently available models.

So again, with out any kind of testable theory, how can yours be better?

There is nothing stopping you from publishing a paper on this. But you can’t just postulate something to sound smart.

Because that sounded like a chat gpt answer.

In case you actually want an answer, is what observable effects would that have, and can we verify them?

If the answer is no, then it’s not a better theory than shrugging your shoulders and saying dark matter.

That’s an appeal to authority fallacy if I’ve ever seen one.

They’re doing proof of concepts, not mass production. They’re at best answering is it possible, not is it a viable alternative.

Please describe to me how someone who offered up changes to change “he” to “they” for them, and then the contributor getting pissy about “politics” is denying work.

Even if it was, why did they get the edited copy? What else was edited for that version?

Would the studio edit something like that out and not tell the BBC?

That’s not how fractions and math work though.

Okay but like, you also realize gas fees for transactions can get stupid expensive right? Banks don’t have variable rates.

That’s not what Planck length is. It’s the minimum resolvable accuracy not measurement. Meaning we can’t prove something was somewhere specific beyond the Planck length. Not that it’s the building size of the universe.

https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length#:~:text=It%20is%20about%201.616255,Planck%20length%20per%20Planck%20time.

it is a common misconception that it is the inherent “pixel size” or smallest possible length of the universe.[1] If a length smaller than this is used in any measurement, then it has a chance of being wrong due to quantum uncertainty

If you want my credentials, the second book is deriving the hydrogen atom.