I believe that's basically the basis of the American size scheme. It's just the size of the paper the paper maker would give you. Records seem to indicate it was based on the sizes of paper used for bookmaking, where a standard sheet would be folded once, twice, or three times to make book page inserts.

Some plastics will melt even on the top rack. Some older plastics will actively breakdown and release junk in the dishwasher.

Some metal corrodes quickly with hot water, soap, and hot air. It also offends your ancestral spirits.

On the plus side, it's pretty straightforward that it can either be cleaned in the dishwasher or in the oven.

Yup. Where it gets fuzzy is with this type of AI being integrated into a search engine.

I honestly feel like if Google had waited, made their solution a good interface for searching as opposed to something which tells you answers and then finds references as best it can that it would have been a lot better. "We trained our model on the same data that our search engine looks at" is a lot more palatable than where things are now.

The tedious part of research for me is figuring out the keywords I need to get to meaningful information.
Something that can say "what you described is called 'ball and socket modular hose', here are some good starting points:" would actually be useful. (I just went through that rigamarole trying to find those rigid little flexible water or air nozzles that can snap together, so it's fresh in my mind)

Shame. I thought the Hudson Bay and Chilean aspect ratio bit was pretty good.

Your comment had six words, and none of the significant ones seemed particularly related to the comment you referenced. You'll have to forgive people if they can't sus out you meaning from six words.

Is it that you think Canada and Chile do live a more authentic human experience? Ooh, as a twist do you think they do manage to be poor, unsuccessful, and also morally worse than Americans?
That'd be an interesting twist compared to the asinine pedantry that hinges on being weird about one or two words im looking forward to.

So please, maybe make it a bakers dozen, and have some of the words actually reference the subject or object of your ire.

Or I'll just take you literally. "Not fond of the province layout", "Hudson Bay is hard to get to", "bad aspect ratio", and "entirely consisting of mountains makes a cohesive transportation network of any type really hard". That's what's really wrong with Canada and Chile.

If we were to close our eyes and pretend that the conversation around AI hadn't happened the way it did, and the training had only involved things people generally agreed were fair game, one could imagine a world where we largely used them as "that person who can tell you what to search for" or clarifies your understanding.

It's not intelligent in the way anyone means, but it's theoretically capable of being a better interface for a search engine.

Edit: it's whole thing is language manipulation. I forgot that I've written technical documents and had it summarize or explain them back to me. Anything it gets wrong is something I can bet a lazy or rushed human would also get caught by, so I clarify that point. Not proofreading, since I'm not asking for feedback. Just "did the words convey the information well enough for a statistical model to properly contextualize".

Oh, I see. You think it's ambiguous when people call the only country with America in its name, that people frequently call America, America.

Do you likewise think it was a good idea to rename the gulf? It is, after all, much more the gulf of America than the Gulf of Mexico, right?
Although, considering it's mostly bordered by the United States of America, and the United Mexican States I suppose it would also make sense to call it the Gulf of the United States.

Or you could just recognize that it's normal to shorten a name to the most distinctive word if the name is long.

Mostly no, but the mostly is because most vegetables aren't as high in protein. If you eat protein rich vegetables the effect holds.
Some starches and fiber also have the effect, since metabolism is complicated. I believe potato is quite high on the satiety index, as are apples.

Basically it's that your body just absorbs sugar and doesn't spend time on it, so it doesn't satisfy you. Carbs are pretty quick, but depending on the fiber content it can more than make up for it. Your body cherishes fat so it tries to get you to drink it. Protein is useful calories that take a lot of work to rip up, and they occupy space.

An apple and a bowl of lentil curry will fill you up.

Nah, you just need art direction. Show someone waiting for the test. They look anxious. Show their stereotyped hourglass timer finish counting, they pick up the test, read the unshown result, close their eyes and give a "not anxious anymore" smile while they take a deep breath, the camera panning up and over towards a sunny window just as their reaction expression hints at showing.

You're not selling pregnant or not pregnant. You're selling not worrying or knowing. So you don't need to convey the emotion of the result, just the emotion of "no longer anxious to find out".

If they have a drink or a multivitamin afterwards is aside from what you're selling.

Okay. This is entirely irrelevant to my point that you originally were replying to that I wouldn't call any number of missing children "acceptable", and that I would be perfectly fine spending money to bring the number lower.

https://childfindofamerica.org/resources/facts-and-stats-missing-children/

I'm okay with spending money to reduce the number of permanently missing, killed, long term abducted, or just about any outcome listed.

Your assumption that different outcomes have the same composition as each other isn't founded.
The very fact that the outcome was different is evidence of different conditions. Contextual evidence made investigators put it in whatever category they did, and I defer to them. Your breakdown ignores that the statistics already account for assumed runaways that never came home.

This is all entirely distinct from the point, which was "there's no number of missing children that's 'okay', and it's okay to spend money to lower the number, and we can actually put together rational spending targets that make sense even for rare circumstances, and if our government isn't in the business of finding lost children then what's the point of any of it?"

It's cataloging differences. The EU number is by outcome, and the US is by how the report started.

The US is saying there were 400k times someone was concerned about not knowing where a kid was for any reason. For the same "stereotyped kidnapping" category the US is roughly the same, with 50-400 per year depending on how you count them.

More than ideal but not a public policy crisis.

I'm not sure it's reasonable to assume that the distribution is the same between recovered and unrecovered children. Specifically because it ignores the circumstances observed by the reporting agency, and secondly because we tend to know where the non-custodial parent is.

https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/304794.pdf

I lost my initial source, but this one serves just as well. I had initially been looking at data from the doj and ncmec.

Based on the NISMART-4 LES-SK, the number of stereotypically kidnapped children in the year from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2019, likely fell between 52 and 306.

The Missing Persons reports from the NCIC show stranger kidnappings trending from 384 to 322 in 2011 to 2019.

This is from page 27-29 where discuss conclusions, statistics and data source quality (tldr: no significant change)

So, again: I got them by doing a cursory search and then looking at criminal justice statistics.

I'm not sure this has anything to do with the initial thing we were talking about anymore?