It seems to me any place where you might expect stock photos might be AI these days, because it's trendy to use AI and may be seen as cheaper than paying for stock photos.
Conversely you don't need to use nearly as much water if you are willing to just stir it a couple of times during the short period of time it takes to come back to a boil after you add the pasta.
Less energy used, less salt needed to get the water properly salty, less time to get the water up to a boil, are why I choose that method. It comes out the same in the end, both methods are valid.
Night watchman if nights are OK. I'm not in touch with how available such jobs are these days, but I had a gig once for a couple of months when I first got out of college, decades ago. Was great to get some reading and thinking done.
I'm not sure how I was specifically talking about crystalized knowledge. People can be flawed in applying any mental skill. And various forms of intelligence come into play in various ways in navigating the nuances or reality, or failing to.
Knowing or not knowing a fact is the simplest to see and talk about, so it probably dominates conversations about intelligence, sure.
It was part of usenet, the earliest, plain text internet forums. I guess in a way a precursor to Lemmy and reddit, and alt.coffee was its equivalent of a community/subreddit for coffee nerds. (I'm showing my age!) Long before enshittification was even a gleam in a billionaire's eye.
I'd like to believe I do it every time I recognize that I am wrong. Equally as important, I think, it to constantly admit, to yourself, and to others where appropriate, that you could be wrong.
The fallibility of human memory and reasoning is enormous, even for very smart people. I think few people properly appreciate this. If you develop that appreciation it is really trivial to admit you are wrong, it's like admitting that you ate.
This is the diet for me. I had to look up Ricciarelli and it sounds just like an Italian cookie I love, except what I'm familiar with are horseshoe shaped. I've also had a very similar pinole version.
I largely agree with this, but I would emphasize that you are trying to learn about the reaction. What triggers it. What you feel. In some cases you might not ever be able to change this reaction entirely, but you may be able to learn to keep your self out of situations where you have this reaction, or notice when you are heading towards it and try to defuse it.
The biggest negative effect of such a thing is usually on others and on relationships. A key element around this is to communicate. To help the person that you snap at understand the reaction also, and of course to apologise for it.
People with money think that the natural born working class will actually do all the jobs the immigrants did for the same low wages.
Natural born working people think there are reasonably paying jobs they would actually want to do being taken up by immigrants that will suddenly become available to them.
They are both laughably mistaken.
BTW I am talking about voters here. Cynically manipulative politicians don't need to believe anything, they say what is useful to them.
Assuming you mean better than the original, this makes no sense. It seems like you are trying to apply criteria that apply to something that is a capture of the real world, like a photograph or recording, where what is captured is limited by simple quantitative factors like numbers of pixels and shades of color, and light levels.
Art like the Mona Lisa is not a simple snapshot of some real original, and that same criteria does not apply. It is valued for the art and nuances in the use of the media, and its affect on the viewer, not for some objective closeness to some real world original. If you made a version of the Mona Lisa that was more like a photograph of Leonardo's model, it would be considered worse, not better.
It seems to me any place where you might expect stock photos might be AI these days, because it's trendy to use AI and may be seen as cheaper than paying for stock photos.