That was my initial thought, yeah, but I couldn’t find any explicit ruling to that effect; only that both halves of the melded card should be able to go to the command zone in the weird partner/meld case (as per 903.9c applying to each half separately).

The closest I’ve been able to find to a resolution has been the Gatherer rulings on [[Gisela, the Broken Blade]]:

In a Commander game, your commander may be Bruna, the Fading Light or Gisela, the Broken Blade, and the other may be in your deck. If they meld into Brisela, Voice of Nightmares, Brisela will also be your commander; but if Brisela leaves the battlefield, only the card chosen as your commander at the start of the game may be put into the command zone.

That just says that the melded card is a commander, though, and not what happens when the melded commander does combat damage. From the Comprehensive Rules, it seems to come down to what’s meant by “the same commander”:

903.10a A player who’s been dealt 21 or more combat damage by the same commander over the course of the game loses the game. (This is a state-based action. See rule 704.)

A few other CRs would seem to shed light, but I’m still not quite sure of the resolution:

903.3b If a player’s commander is a meld card and it’s melded with the other member of its meld pair, the resulting melded permanent is that player’s commander.

903.3c If a player’s commander is a component of a merged permanent, the resulting merged permanent is that player’s commander.

903.9c If a commander is a melded permanent or a merged permanent and its owner chooses to put it into the command zone using the replacement effect described in rule 903.9b, that permanent and each component representing it that isn’t a commander are put into the appropriate zone, and the card that represents it and is a commander is put into the command zone.

I’m a big fan of Docspell, there’s lots of ways to import docs in (watching a folder, watching an e-mail account, etc), and it plays really well with my IdP instance over OIDC.

It’s deep in the replies to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prompt_engineering#Neutral_point_of_view. Thanks as well for reinstating the NPOV template, really bothers me that it was unilaterally deleted without any addressing of the problem.

acronym-spouting rules lawyers

That’s pretty much the response I got offering even extremely mild dissent from AI spam. Apparently, “WP:MNA” means you can just make shit up as long as industry blog posts rely on that wild fever dream being true, for instance. Handy!

The number of sources isn’t really the issue; many of those are industry advertisements, such as blog posts on product pages, for instance. Out of the few that are papers, almost all are written exclusively by industry research teams — while that doesn’t on its own invalidate their results, it does mean that there’s a strong financial interest in the non-consensus view (in particular, that LLMs can be “programmed”). The few papers that have been peer-reviewed have extreme methodological flaws, such that there’s essentially almost no support for the article’s bombastic and extreme non-consensus claims.

I could see technology as being black, a la how Korra treated technology vs spirits in its final arc.

(For the most part, excepting those I haven’t played the main questline end-to-end.)

SSSS: X
S: VII, XIV, XVI
A: XIII, XII, Tactics, FFTA, VIIR, VIIR-2
B: VI, IX, XIII-2, Type-0
C: VIII, IV, Crystal Chronicles, Dissidia, X-2, LR: XIII, Bravely Default
F: Crystal Chronicles S, the Android port of FFT

I love everything I’ve listed at C… for me, that just means “interesting ideas that I really love and hope they’ll revisit, but that ultimately didn’t land for me as a game in the form it was released in.” And yes, Bravely Default is a Final Fantasy game imho.

[Sorry for continually editing this, the Markdown formatting keeps giving me issues.]

Both can be true? He said some mildly pro-queer-rights stuff pretty soon before that all happened, and it’s clear that Grimes calling him out and his daughter disowning him got under his skin. That’s not to defend, not even slightly; rather, the shift in targets and more explicit right-wing affiliation definitely go along with him being (and I wish I could remember who coined this) the most divorced man on the planet.

The moral failings were already there, but now he’s found a big glowing target for his tantrums, unfortunately for us queer folks.

I understand the limitations, but please consider the signal that sends — that it’s OK to rip off art if you do it at scale, and that the climate impact is no big deal. Especially for new communities, that tells folks right off the bat to stay away.

Is that an AI generated picture for the post?

I mean, the trouble is that voting for Democrats does literally support genocide, if only because every president and presidential candidate in modern history has promised and/or enacted genocidal policies. When talking about US politics and genocide, the bar is so low, it’s in hell.

The nuance to all of the above is that voting for Republicans supports genocide even more. It’s entirely valid to vote for less genocide amongst several genocidal options, and also to call said genocide out.

That’s fair, yeah. I ran into that a little while ago only having read 903.11 and not realizing the contradiction; people got a bit irate with me, even though it was an honest mistake. Ah, well.

Even aside from potential or actual bias, there’s a pretty wide gap between bias and the incitement that the Israeli government is accusing Al Jazeera of. I don’t have to fully endorse the entirety of Al Jazeera’s coverage to think that shutting them down and criminalizing them is a pretty huge overreach.

It’s also a question of methods; a giant company simply ignoring an unjust law is typically a pretty poor way to challenge it (as always, there are exceptions). To the extent that Australia is claiming that Musk sees himself as above the law, that’s a pretty accurate charge, that holds whether the particular law in question is just or not.

Shorter version: fuck Musk, and also fuck countries claiming they can order takedowns beyond their borders. Both can be true at once.

It’s absolutely better than the alternative, but I always feel like that kind of support comes with a caveat or implicit limit. Even in that ad, the narrator still argues for “parent’s rights” as an alternative to “big government,” rather than emphasizing his parental responsibilities.

I am 100% and unreservedly glad, though, to see that the organization itself is founded by a trans woman (https://www.lib.ncsu.edu/news/main-news/alaina-and-kathy-brennan-kupec-endow-transgender-positive-collection).

It may indeed be, I’m not familiar with Middle East Monitor, but Media Bias/Fact Check are themselves rather infamously biased towards the American right wing. For example, they list the New York Times as nearly as left-biased as their scale goes, despite that the Times has largely taken the Republican party line on a number of issues, such as queer rights (their deceptive coverage of trans rights has been a large part of the current moral panic, and has led to multiple open lettersof protest). The Times was even instrumental in elevating Trump to the presidency with their incredibly dubious decision to give Comey’s procedural memo front page placement and a misleading headline mere days before the election — a choice that Nate Silver has said was possibly deciding on the election. The Guardian is also listed as left-center despite even more extreme transphobic editorial decisions than even the Times.

Similarly, they list MSNBC as far-left, despite them having Republican-led shows and frequent Republican guests. I’ll definitely agree there’s some degree to which they’re on the left, but it’s pretty minor all told. The idea that they’re far left is just ridiculous, and one that only makes sense from the perspective of America’s right-wing culture.

At the same time, they list Wall Street Journal as mostly credible, something that just isn’t a serious take on media credibility.

(Edited to add: a lot of this comes down to the very strong bias in American media towards the “both sides” idea that if two sources disagree, the truth must be in the middle. That bias is especially clear in discussions of climate change, but it’s also prevalent in discussions of other political issues more generally.)

Artists, like all laborers, should be fairly compensated for their work. The idea that love of art should necessarily come into conflict with fair compensation is a primary vehicle for continuing the exploitation of creative labor.

That is somewhat orthogonal to the issue of piracy, though. Some of the most strongly anti-piracy platforms out there are also absolutely terrible in terms of labor rights (hence the current strikes in Hollywood, for instance). It’s notable that in this case, the studio seems to be saying fairly explicitly that piracy is indeed not the main obstacle to fair compensation, such that no conflict between their stance and labor rights needs to exist.

Take LGBTQ+ rights. Hell, even narrow down to trans rights. One side finds people like me inconvenient to talk about, the other wants us to be denied all medical care despite the disastrous effects that has on suicide rates (eso amongst trans kids). What is the “balanced” perspective there? What’s the “center” view that you’re striving to achieve using your stochastic parrot engines?

Even if LLMs did what you claim they did (they don’t), your stated objectives are reprehensible and, if successful, will get people killed.

Finding “AI” inaccuracies is the least surprising thing in the world. Given how LLMs work and their extremely well-documented failures to produce accurate information, the burden of proof lies squarely on “AI” vendors to show the accuracy of their products. To say that they have thus far failed to do so is… generous.

None of this snake oil should be touching news.