@mattly I don't know. I guess "gradually, and at great length."
But even that kind of assumes that we have a consensus epistemic reality to draw on and work toward. That's been under attack for decades, and at this point we have more like a half dozen to choose from. But thanks to all the LLMs, we're now hurtling toward a future where everyone has their own custom tailored reality. And I don't know how to handle that
@mattly I guess I just want to have a rhetorical landscape where threatening to kill people (or abandon them to die, same diff) terminates the other debate so we can focus on that
@mattly but if we stop the leopards from eating people's faces now, it won't be fair to all the people who's faces were already eaten! And we'll have nothing to show for it!
@mattly@puppygirlhornypost2 After reading that last bullet point, I suspect the actual goal of the exercise is to teach the words that will make you legible to the LLM. In which case, we need to move that warning to the front. Something like "this is not a place of learning, no great knowledge is imparted here, etc"
@inthehands@GhostOnTheHalfShell@cryptadamist If you're seeing a single price listed on a stock, that's the per-share price of the last sale on a public exchange. For historical values (like yesterday's price, etc) it's the sale price of the last sale in that period (aka the closing price). If there's not enough volume to give real prices, then your brokerage might just show the open bid (offer to buy) and ask (offer to sell) prices.
This knowledge comes courtesy of building trade ticket UIs for 5+ years at Schwab and Fidelity
@inthehands If they can just revoke degrees, where does it end? What's to stop them from retroactively revoking scholarships? Or from modifying the authorship of papers? Why not revoke the enrollment itself? If a president, or a donor, or a regent just doesn't like you or your politics, it seems that Columbia thinks they can just obliterate any portion of your life that has touched that university.