You had 100% of my attention with the cat and mouse game.
History is often much more interesting looking up from the average guy than looking down with all the majesty (and bureaucracy) of the nobles. This card has great insight into the common man.
Why would you carry an Axe over the should opposite the hand you're holding it with?
That's not an axe, it's a bindle - exactly what a fool (in french, le fou) would carry.
What is up with his pants
He's wearing medieval trousers - that is in fact two 'hose'
These trousers, which we would today call tights but which were still called hose or sometimes joined hose at the time, emerged late in the fifteenth century and were conspicuous by their open crotch which was covered by an independently fastening front panel, the codpiece.
And again le fou is so stupid, his junk is out and all over the place.
Many people do not hear as they read. In fact the skill of speed-reading depends on turning the auditory experience off:
There are three types of reading:
Subvocalization: sounding out each word internally, as reading to oneself. This is the slowest form of reading.
Auditory reading: hearing out the read words. This is a faster process.
Visual reading: understanding the meaning of the word, rather than sounding or hearing. This is the fastest process.
Subvocalization readers (Mental readers) generally read at approximately 250 words per minute, auditory readers at approximately 450 words per minute and visual readers at approximately 700 words per minute. Proficient readers are able to read 280–350 wpm without compromising comprehension.
Islam, just like Christianity, has many different groups that believe the same basic doctrine but disagree on many points. The main splits in Islam (that echo some aspects of the Catholic vs. Protestant split) as Sunni and Shia. Each divides and divides again into small communities centred on one mosque (just as, eg, Protestantism divides and divides down to individual congregations).
The big question is: how do groups of people decide which parts of the religious documents, history and practice are more relevant or even correct?
Some groups are quite 'secular' (like the Church of England) while others are quite 'fundamental', meaning that they much more strictly follow whatever the group decides are the foundation of the religion.
Is it possible to be able so say which of these groups is right? It seems to me that we have been fighting over this since before records began, so we most definitely do not have a way to do this that any majority agrees with. I don't think anyone can say:
Islamist groups purposely ... twist actual Islamic ideology while the Christian Right just doesn’t understand the religious text they claim to follow.
Actually, PDF is a turing complete programming language.
PDF is a simplification and wrapper around the computer language PostScript - a PostScript or PDF doc literally runs on the printer or computer and outputs the rasterisation of the thing you want to print.
PostScript is language based around a stack. You can define functions (which may be fully recursive) that run on the stack.
Linux was not muscled like that in 1991 - it's first, barebones kernel was released in September of that year.
I remember installing Linux on a 90MHz 486 in the mid 90s and it barely ran X server with a simple window manager. And if the machine was turned off while Linux was running, you might not be able to boot again.
I'm guessing that exactly the same LLM model is used (somehow) on both sides - using different models or different weights would not work at all.
An LLM is (at core) an algorithm that takes a bunch of text as input and produces an output of a list of word/probabilities such that the sum of all probabilities adds to 1.0. You could place a wrapper on this that creates a list of words by probability. A specific word can be identified by the index in the list, i.e. first word, tenth word etc.
(Technically the system uses 'tokens' which represent either whole words or parts of words, but that's not important here).
A document can be compressed by feeding in each word in turn, creating the list in the LLM, and searching for the new word in the list. If the LLM is good, the output will be a stream of small integers. If the LLM is a perfect predictor, the next word will always be the top of the list, i.e. a 1. A bad prediction will be a relatively large number in the thousands or millions.
Streams of small numbers are very well (even optimally) compressed using extant technology.
If you'd read the article you will see that this is a report from a network of church abuse survivors and the person speaking has first hand evidence from speaking to Prevost. If you discount them, you are basically saying that witness statements count for nothing. You are silencing the victims.
You will also know that Prevost blocked the 'real investigation' you claim you want and this is core to the point of the article.
Yeah - there's actual video evidence of it exploding! Unfortunately that means that it no longer exists, so that would explain why it's absent from the Pope's blessèd gun rack.
There was definitely a chance of being denied entry (with possible strip searching), but the usual consequence was being sent back to where you came from on the next plane and never being able to come back. Weeks in ICE custody and concentration camps are completely new.
Right now there's a non-zero chance of being detained, stripped searched, probed and held in a prison cell without access to safe food and water for an unknown length of time before being deported. Hopefully not to a death in a Columbian hellhole.
I don't know about you, but even if that is a tiny chance, I'm not risking myself or my family unless it's really important.
People are tribal - they tend to conform to what the group thinks and does. We're also primed with strong us vs. them tendencies, that is you want your team to win whatever happens.
As you say, if you believe that (for example) your friends and neighbours think democrats are radical socialists out to destroy American life, it would be highly dangerous to vote democrat let alone be on team democrat.
As others have said, open communication is critical. It is necessary but not sufficient.
You've probably been thinking through why you cheated and continued to cheat. However it can be really difficult to go deep get the true answer by yourself - brains tend to generate reasons/excuses in a way that minimizes your responsibility and preserves your ego as best it can. If you try to explain what happened to your wife and give a facile or self-serving excuse, you could make things far far worse.
Many people find that the process of talking with a professional (a counsellor or therapist) can get deeper than doing this by yourself. You will get to a more profound and authentic understanding of yourself and of steps you can take to be the better person you want to become. By knowing yourself better you are able to properly apologise and explain to your wife why you betrayed her trust. You will also be able provide some evidence that you are not going to do this again. Broken trust takes a long time to repair - self discovery and improvement is a process, not a single event.
Another thing to consider is whether you and your wife can have constructive conversations about what happened and what your hopes and wants are for the future. If conversations rapidly devolve into arguments and anger, it may make things worse (but every relationship is different). If you worry that those conversations may spiral out of control, or will not be productive, I'd suggest doing this with a neutral, professional third party like a relationship councillor who can facilitate the conversation.
Those are a few ideas - they are certainly not comprehensive and YMMV.
You had 100% of my attention with the cat and mouse game.
History is often much more interesting looking up from the average guy than looking down with all the majesty (and bureaucracy) of the nobles. This card has great insight into the common man.