I’m a family doctor, so I haven’t yet. It’s not a validated tool to source medical information, and I can’t paste any patient identifiers into it, so even if I wanted its input it’s way faster to just use my standard medical resources.
Our EMR plans to do some testing later this year for generative AI in areas that don’t have to be medically validated like notes to patients. I will likely sign up to pilot it if that option is offered.
I use it for D&D, though, along with a mixture of other tools, random generators, and my own homebrew. My players are aware of this.
a.Delta: The Surgeon General wants us to remove true information about side effects.
That is a false quote: there is no period at the end of that quote, because that was only half a sentence. The next word in that sentence is a big “IF,” followed by context that made it clear they only were requested to remove bullshit. This was followed by 4 other bullet points that further affirmed that the government specifically wanted them to remove half truths and lies, not factual information.
If you’re not even going to bother to get the whole quote, why are you posting? It appears the only one who is not actually interested m the truth is you.
The main benefit is that it allows us to change how we vote for President over time without requiring a Constitutional amendment every time. This is because the states themselves can decide how they select electors, and can try out different voting systems without requiring permission from the federal government.
For example, there is currently an agreement between states that, if they get enough states to agree for a majority of electoral votes, they will all switch to using the national popular vote as their only criterion. So we can switch to that system with less than half the states, rather than requiring 3/4 of them to approve an amendment. And of we decide we hate the system later, we can switch back, again without an amendment.
In that case, keeping the doors and windows shut will give you the best chance of survival, because there will be less oxygen flow and thus a slower burn.
You’ll need to call in a fire emergency, lie low on the ground, and try to use a rag/shirt/towel to filter some of the smoke while you wait to be rescued. You still might die, but at least this way you have a chance.
Using thermal imaging cameras, researchers found that closed-door rooms on both floors during the fire’s spread had average temperatures of less than 100 degrees Fahrenheit versus 1000+ degrees in the open-door rooms. “You could see a markable difference that a person could be alive in a room with a closed door much longer,” says Kerber.
Gas concentrations were markedly different as well. The open-door bedroom measured an extremely toxic 10,000 PPM CO (parts per million of Carbon Monoxide), while the closed had approximately 100 PPM CO.
Incorrect. There have been many ontological arguments: Wikipedia lists over a dozen formulations.
You not being convinced by any does not change the fact that they have been seriously proposed and discussed for the last 1000 years or so. And again, ontological arguments are just one of many different types.
I see you feel the need to project some notion of “feelings” onto me, which is not at all what fallibilism is. So not only did you attempt to start an argument on an explanatory thread, but now you’ve demonstrated you’ve misunderstood the replies, declared yourself winner of your own game, and are jotting off. So… congrats?
Nowadays, yes. Back in the day a run on the bank could screw everyone.