Bamboodpanda

Wow, I really appreciate your thoughtful and self-aware reply. It’s rare to see someone online who’s so open to engaging with criticism in a meaningful way, and I think that speaks volumes about your willingness to reflect and grow. We all get frustrated—especially when it feels like we're up against deeply ingrained beliefs or conspiracies—but the fact that you’re mindful of it and striving for constructive dialogue is something worth celebrating.

I know it can feel overwhelming, but staying grounded in truth and compassion, even when it’s frustrating, is powerful. It’s people like you who keep conversations moving in the right direction, even when it seems like progress is slow. Keep that courage and integrity in your interactions. It really does make a difference.

Nope! Person here. I just use GPT to clean up my text.

Hmm, while we're here, I don't have a pumpkin pie recipe to share, but I recently tried Mayo Cookies, and they turned out great. I recommend replacing the vanilla extract with coconut extract and adding coconut flakes for a nice twist.

Ingredients:

• 1 cup white sugar
• 2 cups all-purpose flour
• 1 cup mayonnaise
• 1 teaspoon baking soda
• 1 pinch of salt
• 1 teaspoon vanilla extract (or coconut extract)
• Optional: coconut flakes

Directions:

1. Preheat your oven to 350°F (175°C).
2. In a bowl, mix together the sugar, flour, baking soda, and salt.
3. Add the mayonnaise and vanilla (or coconut extract) and mix well. The dough will be crumbly.
4. Shape into walnut-sized balls, place them on a baking sheet, and flatten with a fork. Sprinkle with sugar if you'd like.
5. Bake for 12 minutes. Let cool before serving.

*Edit Make sure they're walnut size. My first batch was good but too big and soft. They are so much better when smaller and more crispy.

The fallacy here is Tu quoque (appeal to hypocrisy).

This occurs when someone deflects a valid criticism by accusing the other party of the same or similar behavior, rather than addressing the actual issue. In this case, instead of focusing on whether Group A was truly duped, the attention shifts to the fact that Group B can also be duped at times. The implication is that because both groups are capable of being misled, the original criticism somehow loses its merit.

Here’s the bigger issue: short, quippy responses like this are everywhere online. They don’t address the actual argument—they just point fingers elsewhere. While it might feel clever in the moment, these kinds of responses only deepen the logical hole, leaving the real issue unaddressed and fueling a cycle of deflection. Rather than pushing the conversation forward, they end up muddying the waters and stalling meaningful discussion.

Ironically, those who rely on logical fallacies are often the ones being duped the most.

If you think he read the fine print before donating money, read up on his purchase of Twitter. The man doesn't read the fine print.

Hah! I read that the guy who coined it regrets that he named it that. It stands for retrieval augmented generation. Is essentially ctrl-v. For example, instead of just asking it a question about a topic, feed it an entire course's worth of text and notes on the topic and then ask it a question.

RAG is still the most reliable method for increasing accuracy and giving you the means of checking your sources.

My wife and I unsubscribed a few months back. I've not noticed.

I left the Church when I realized that my Christian values were no longer welcomed.

Except our constitution gives us 1 reason. Trump managed to break the 1 rule. Either we ignore the constitution or we follow it.