unrealistic, the botanist didnt reply "ah yes, it is the humble [some latin bullshit], my fifth favorite tree in its order, most noteworthy for the shape of its leaves. it's actually most closely related to carrots." and then, of course, add "fuck yeah big tree"
you should delete this comment and refrain from saying stuff like this in the future. sexual violence isn't funny.
Yup, it sucks being a genuinely passionate and hard worker, because that just means that inevitably, they're going to try and take advantage of you. And then you've gotta quit, because there's no coming back from that. It's happened to me twice and I'm seeing the early warning signs at my current job 
Seriously, how do you fuckers keep coming up with new comms to spam AI trash to? I've blocked like ten of them already. Ffs.
You are being silly and gullible. These chatbots just make shit up. You can't learn anything from them. It's literally worse than just googling the question and believing whatever nonsense you read on Quora. They don't "know" anything, they're a particularly advanced form of your phone's predictive text feature.
Probably a little of both, but I really don't think there are very many practical applications for current AI technology. You can make bad drawings or bad writing in bulk, and those are both niches which have been overflowing with human contributors for centuries at least.
The exception I can think of as a native speaker is when the place is strongly implied. Like, "Now I put this..." and trail off, but it's obvious where I'm putting it because you're watching me put it somewhere that I've probably indicated multiple times already.
Are you talking about that time they launched a missile over the least populated possible part of Japan as part of a test? What are they supposed to do, just not advance their tech? They're surrounded, they've got to launch them over somebody and they did it the safest way they could.
Biden isn't a sexual predator that is literally a qanon conspiracy theory
That he is not a sexual predator is a blue-MAGA conspiracy theory. It is very apparent to everyone who isn't on his team.
He was racist in the 60s.
The man eulogized Strom Thurmond, fuck off with this shit.
-
Democrats don't want to win and don't have any true beliefs, they're controlled opposition
-
No one cares what you "expose" about republicans anyway. People vote for who they're told to vote for no matter what. They were told to vote for trump, they voted for trump, despite the fact that he's a self-admitted sexual predator. They were told to vote for Biden so they voted for Biden, even though he is also a sexual predator, and a well-documented racist monster just like Trump of course.
-
By consolidating behind Biden they kind of cut off their ability to criticize people for being like Biden. And Biden is basically a republican.
Many non-liberals support capitalism
Which ones do you have in mind? I'm not even saying you're wrong, I can think of examples myself. (I did say it wasn't a 100% perfect definition) Nevertheless, it is still the definition I truly use. If I saw someone defending capitalism I would call them a liberal regardless of whether it was 100% accurate.
What? Do you look in the dictionary to find exhaustive encyclopedia articles about topics? Do you need me to define capitalism too, is that why my definition is too vague? Do you need me to define "support?" What part of my definition are you confused about?
If someone asks you what a tuque is, are you unsatisfied until you have talked about the Welsh town of Monmouth and the methods they used in the 15th century to stitch caps? Or would you tell them that it's a knit fucking cap
you keep trying to distract
No, that's literally the opposite of what I'm doing. When someone asks you to clarify something you just said, or restate it in other words, or otherwise help them understand it, that's literally the opposite of distracting. I am in fact focusing on what you said, and you are the one repeatedly distracting from it and calling me stupid.
That's not a definition, that's an extremely thorough article about liberalism.
Words only have meaning if their definition is agreed upon
I mean you really don't have to agree, you just have to understand. It doesn't matter what you think the definition of liberal should be as long as you know what I mean when I say it. And now you do. So, how about you define your terms now so that there can be effective two-way communication? As it stands, the communication only goes one way. You understand me, but I don't understand you. That doesn't seem very fair. From the article you linked:
Through all these strands and traditions, scholars have identified the following major common facets of liberal thought:
- believing in equality
Please resolve the inequality present in this conversation.
play dumb, let it slip, then play dumb again
you seem to be convinced that i at some point revealed that i actually did know what was going on the whole time. i would like you to quote what you think proves that, because i assure you that at no point have i had any idea wtf you're talking about mate
