Considering in much of the world Google defaults to AI answers now, it’s just a matter of who makes up less incorrect shit

That’s cool. Here those not wanting extra equipment have a phone number you use to send the money to

I wouldn’t listen to the station if it was your normal commercial channel presenters. I can’t stand that shit.

Right. Wikipedia defines it as such

A self-driving car, also known as a autonomous car (AC), driverless car, robotaxi, robotic car or robo-car,[1][2][3] is a car that is capable of operating with reduced or no human input.

But also

Organizations such as SAE have proposed terminology standards. However, most terms have no standard definition and are employed variously by vendors and others. Proposals to adopt aviation automation terminology for cars have not prevailed.

So there’s no one definition. It is driving by itself. You don’t have to do any driving. But you should keep alert so if something happens you can taker over. Seems like it fits with the general use imo but doesn’t fulfill the more stringent definitions.

It’s self-driving but you need to supervise it because you are both responsible and because it’s not perfect.

I’ve listened to stations where it’s all AI. Presenters are AI, song selection is AI, news and whatnot are read by AI. I actually found it less annoying than your typical commercial radio station.

If it’s mostly music and there’s a news segment with an AI reading the news, that sorta thing, I don’t really see a reason to be upset

Do you mean the original topic or what?

It’s true, I have no idea what you are on about and what your messages have to do with the topic

I’m waiting for the part that it gets used for things that are not lazy

Replacing menial or boring tasks is like 90% of what I’m hoping from it.

The image generation features are fun, even though you have to browbeat the idiot AI into following the description.

Not sure if copypasta or AI text…

You seemed to have trouble understanding what was going on.

The article was specifically about India. So people specifically criticized India. Doesn’t seem vague to me.

I’m saying you are taking a specific criticism and veering it into a vague criticism. The article is about India so criticism is directed towards India. Saying “it’s bad whoever does it” bring nothing to the table.

This article is specifically about India, going All Lives Matter just seems strange here.

Article is specifically about India

I mean, North Koreans did kidnap people from abroad, so technically…

Do you happen to remember where in the book did she claim that? I’m honestly trying to just figure out where in the book you read that since I don’t think anyone else came off from reading it with such a drastically different number. What everyone else, such as the other book you mentioned, keeps saying is “approximately 100”. It’s such a big disparity that it’s interesting.

Such proud, unapologetic, arrogant lying.

Okay but really, last reply. Have a nice life. Hope you find a way to stop huffing your own farts.

I mean tbh I think you’ve just made a mistake and are too pigheaded to admit it. But I’m trying to give the benefit of the doubt, it might just be an honest case of misremembering. If you have the book around or otherwise remember where those numbers were claimed in it we could easily check and that’d be that.

already told you that Sana esrimated 500 from a single deportation.

She said 500 people were deported (in that single instance), not that 500 Jews were deported… You are misremembering or misunderstood what she said, I’m sorry to say.

I will not be replying further

I was about to ask if you have the book right in front of you and could perhaps check that what you remember reading is actually what it said. That way we could both double check that you got it right. But I somehow doubt that would happen anyway. If you have the book right now it wouldn’t hurt to double check.

Another thing I was thinking of was that in what language did you read it? If you read it in Finnish, are you a native speaker or fluent? Because a misunderstanding could be down to that.

I’m honestly just trying my hardest to find out what part you are citing and why you’d come up with such a wildly different number from everyone else. I know you said you wouldn’t reply anymore but it would be very helpful in figuring out this mystery.

These are numbers from the actual books. The screenshot is the first work you cited, contradicting you. The numbers in the above comment comment come from Sana’s book. As I’ve explained many times, you misunderstood what you read and thought all those deported were Jews, but neither makes that claim. Most were deported for other reasons.

You obviously prize your guesswork and imagination over the historical work you were provided

I don’t, that’s why I was hoping you’d show me where in those books these claims are. Since from reading them, they thoroughly contradict your numbers. You say you can’t force me to read but I’m constantly asking you to show where in the books these claims are so I could read it and see what part you are citing. Because the parts I’ve posted here, again, directly contradict your numbers. Clearly there’s something wrong so just telling where in the books these numbers are you are basing your claim would be very helpful.

You are repeatedly announcing, with certainty, how correct you are based on a screenshot of a review of several books, in contradiction of what the book I cited will tell you.

The screenshot is from the first book you cited. I literally have it right here in front of me. You are telling me one thing and the book you say you are basing your numbers on says another. It’s a funny situation. It’s like when people claim something based on the Bible but when asked to show where it says so, they’re suddenly unable to come up with any pages or actual quotations, it’s just “it’s in there”. I bet it is friend, I bet it is.