I'm not sure if I consider "Afghanistan during the Taliban guerilla war" a good example of ideal anarchist living. Nor what came after that for that matter.

I've had McDonald's in Italy and it's the same cardboard taste there as it is elsewhere in Europe imo.

The rapes were documented in the Soviet archives... Goebbels was long dead when this evidence surfaced.

Other Allied armies raped too, but there's evidence the rear echelons of the Soviet army were the worst.

One of the NPP maintainers responded with:

Notepad++ & its plugins are installed in "Program Files" directory by default, which means hackers would need admin privileges to replace any plugin. If a hacker gains such privileges, they could also replace all the DLLs in the system32 folder. By the same logic, once Notepad++ is compromised in this way, any applications or executable binary (*.exe & *.dll) on the system could potentially be replaced. Or am I missing somethings?

Which I suppose is true. You could argue it is a way to persist malicious code once you do have access, but it seems unlikely and not that useful. Low severity if anything.

You'd need to have some general attack script that can adjust (or create proxies for) dlls maliciously on the fly, without prior knowledge of which dlls are encountered. Only in that case could the exe maybe detect malicious changes to the dll and stop execution. But a targeted attack using a compromised NPP distribution wouldn't be covered with such a check.

As much as I agree that Israel is a destabilizing force and that you have their MO fairly spot on, Israel doesn't seem to be using its nuclear arsenal as a deterrent for invasion. They don't have to, they have significant conventional forces with US backing, making invasion nigh-impossible anyway. That's how it went in the past at least with the various regional wars.

I'm not sure an Iranian bomb would stabilize much if anything. Israel sees it as a direct existential threat and will stop at nothing to prevent or disable such a weapon. Iran has also repeatedly threatened to use it on Israel offensively, which doesn't really bode well for peace either. Suppose Iran does lob a bomb at Israel, how would they respond? Or what if Israel strikes first? I don't trust either party to be reasonable and responsible here tbh.

Iran can't use the weapon to threaten Israel as you say, because it'd be an empty threat. Iran can't nuke Israel without getting nuked right back. Israel knows this, so they can continue their expansions just fine.

MAD doctrine prevents nuclear wars from breaking out, but as we have been seeing recently it doesn't prevent conventional wars.

Here you go!

Tuta would also be required to implement a backdoor in their encryption if this law passes. In this post they've stated they will refuse to do so, because it's not possible.

My point is that telling it a right answer is wrong often causes LLMs to completely shit the bed. They used to argue with you nonsensically, now they give you a different answer (often also wrong).

The only question missing at the start was "How many r's are there in the word 'veryberry'. I think raspberry also worked when I tried it. This was ChatGPT4-O. I did mark all the answers as bad, so perhaps they've fixed this one by now.

Still, it's remarkably trivial to get an LLM to provide a clearly non-human response.

Money spent building nuclear is money not spent on renewables. I didn't say you said to stop building solar, but deciding to build nuclear does mean building less solar, simple allocation of resources.

Solar energy particularly has been becoming increasingly efficient and cheap. In fact, it's ahead of even the most optimistic expectations price-wise.

There's been plenty of studies showing that nuclear is not theoretically required to achieve 100% fossil-fuel free energy generation. And we've known this since 2009: https://frontiergroup.org/articles/do-we-really-need-nuclear-power-baseload-electricity/#:~:text=Nuclear%20power%20proponents%20argue%20that,baseload%20power%20other%20than%20nuclear.

Wind, solar, geothermal, hydro and energy storage solutions are perfectly capable of providing the full energy demand whenever we require it. The only issue is building sufficient amounts of it.

In fact, nuclear is particularly bad at providing base power. The reason is that renewables are so cheap (and becoming cheaper), that one of the main issues has turned into having too much power on the grid. Nuclear unfortunately doesn't turn off and on very quickly. Many old reactors take a couple hours to do so, and even if it's technically possible it's financially impossible because the reactor would be running at too large a loss. When dealing with fluctuating power (mostly caused by the day/night cycle of solar, other effects mostly even out if the grid is large enough), you need a backup system that can also easily turn on and off. Energy storage and hydrogen can do this, nuclear can't.

Then there's the energy security argument. 40% of uranium imports come from Russia. Kazakhstan is an alternative, but even that is largely controlled by Rosatom.

Literal fucking oil shill.

Please stay civil. I'm happy to debate you but you can keep the insults to yourself. I'm very much against the oil industry. I'm not even necessarily against nuclear as a technology (I think it's safe and don't think the waste will be too big of an issue, also fusion is really cool science), but I have to conclude that it doesn't make financial sense to go for nuclear, there's practical problems integrating it with a renewable grid and we just have better alternatives.

Imagine never having monkey-butt (an itchy asshole}. No more skid marks either.

Can't say that I'm having this when just using wipes... Maybe wipe a little better?

They did get somewhat better dialogue, but their characters also have some horribly cringy moments.

It's different because the company built and maintains the space. Same goes for a concert hall, a pub, etc...

Nobody believes that someone being thrown out of a pub for spouting Nazistic hate speech is their "free speech being trampled". Why should it be any different if it's a website?

You rarely see the discussion, because there's rarely a good argument here. It boils down to "it's a big website, so I should be allowed to post whatever I want there", which makes little to no sense and opens up a massive quagmire of legal issues.