How is asking an LLM and checking it against public values for nutrition less work than just using the public values in the first place?
Judging by the downvotes, we apparently don’t like seeing questions here.
Flour alone already has enough carbohydrates to feed the yeast. Most basic breads are made with just flour, water, yeast, and salt.
If that debt is accruing interest, it might be a good idea to do that to get out of debt while you still can. The deeper you go, the harder it is to get out. That’ll let you help your friends in the future without as much of a negative impact on your own situation.
That’s the point of having savings. You could just as easily ask yourself what you would do if you spent 2k on car repairs and suddenly your friend urgently needs financial assistance the next day. If you need to spend that money, then you spend it. If you can’t, then you deal with the consequences.
That I did. I wasn’t aware that the comment implied any intent. And that’s on me, which is the entire point in trying to communicate. Even if I didn’t intend to imply malice, I still did, and it’s my responsibility as the speaker to communicate better so that the reader actually interprets the text as I meant it to be interpreted.
That wasn’t my comment
it’s okay for the meaning of the post title to also be part of the discussion.
Isn’t that what this entire thread is?
accuse them of intentionally using malicious misleading tactics
I never implied intent. Or rather, never intended to. If there’s a particular comment I made that did, do let me know. My communication skills are perpetual work in progress.
You can’t live in a world where you’re not the “target audience”, can you?
Why not? I’m pretty sure I’m not the target audience for Fox News articles.
But I think what you’re trying to get at is that not everyone in the target audience will have the same interpretation? Some, like yourself, will read it the way that the author intended. So consequently, you can’t write a headline that will be correctly interpreted by everyone. The best you can do is to write in a way that it’s correctly interpreted by as many as possible.
It appears you really don’t like the idea of being an outlier who didn’t get it
I’m not a fan of being the outlier that put so much effort into learning how neurotypical communication works only to be told that my understanding of neurotypical communication is wrong with no actual correction. I like to be able to understand other people, neurotypicals included, but if this isn’t how they would interpret this headline, I’d like to know how they actually do rather than just being told something like “if they interpret it differently, then they’re dumb and not worth your time”.
That seems to be the main point we disagree on. This conversation won’t go anywhere until there’s a consensus on this. To me, the goal of language (and the words that compose that language) is to optimize transfer of information. In colloquial conversations and news headlines, we optimize for the rate of information transfer. In more formal settings like academia or legalese, we optimize for minimal ambiguity at the expense of the rate.
Where do the meaning of words come from?
Your comment appears to rely on the premise that this interpretation is wrong. But consider where the meaning of words come from. They’re for communicating with other human beings. If the target audience interprets it a certain way, then that is the correct meaning. In one-to-many communications, it is the expectation that the one follows the conventions of the many. To be coddled is to have it go the other way around.
A native English speaker would likely read that title to mean that the priest was the one holding the paintbrush.
Ah, gotcha. I thought you meant you looked up “whole wheat bread nutrition” and used those results to verify. Not that it would’ve made any more sense to offer that value as an answer since there’s so much variation in what can be considered whole wheat bread.