Why would the Taliban want to shoot down a plane? They're not terrorists like IS or Al-Qaeda and they're not antsy enough to shoot down a plane first and think later like Iran are, nor is it an active warzone... They just want to commit human rights violations in peace and shooting down a plane is a golden ticket to foreign intervention.

The issue for RPGs is that they have such "small" context windows, and a big point of RPGs is that anything could be important, investigated, or just come up later

Although, similar to how deepseek uses two stages ("how would you solve this problem", then "solve this problem following this train of thought"), you could have an input of recent conversations and a private/unseen "notebook" which is modified/appended to based on recent events, but that would need a whole new model to be done properly which likely wouldn't be profitable short term, although I imagine the same infrastructure could be used for any LLM usage where fine details over a long period are more important than specific wording, including factual things

They didn't want France getting wind of their cheese and declaring war on Norway for having the audacity to have non-french cheese

Or just bring an empty bottle through and fill it up at the tap/water fountain?

At least you can (theoretically, if you have your own datacentre or botnet) run, finetune and play with this yourself, so at least it's somewhat useful, especially if you finetune it for applications where word predicting is actually exactly what you want

Whoosh

I'm saying I have no sympathy for Palestinians who can't sympathise with other people who were forced from their homes, or Israelis who can't do the same. They are free to dislike the IDF, but using them as an excuse to hate Jews and/or Israelis is no better than the people who hate all Palestinians and/or Arabs masking or justifying it with their hatred of Hamas.

I mean that sounds like they tried it with promising results but made avoidable mistakes.

If we really wanted to do it, with almost 80 million "top 1%" people in whatever category you want to optimise it's hard to say that the genepool isn't big enough, and also hard to argue against the fact that eugenics would work, but given the people who start it will be dead by the time any results are shown is it really worth ruining that many lives for is the real question - why not use genetic engineering on embryos and cell cultures if you want to improve human bodies (still not saying we should), as it's faster and less disruptive to existing people

I mean if you go back 300 years, but then if you go back 1000-1300 then most of England & Scotland starts to look pretty German (Anglo-Saxons, Norse), with England getting significant French & Scandinavian (Norman = French Norse) influence after and tenuously Austrian (Celts) before that... The native British people were completely wiped out at least twice before that, so frankly all sorts of European nations *could* have a claim if Putin rules applied

"Most people" live until their late eighties (at least in Western Europe), modal and median ages at death are generally 86-90, whereas the mean is lower as you have around 15 years to die in after 85, but 85 years to die in before which pulls it down

The dictionary definition is "Anything twisted, winding, or spiral." but an inference can be made

At which point you get yelled at for reviving a dead thread