So you are criticising the over simplification presented here and I agree with you.
I would however point out that although I also don't like the binary aspect of their blurb, I find that I would quite agree with their final sentence. I don't think the test shows whether we are a good or a bad person, but it does say something about a person's ability to fit in a society.
What's "wrong" in your question is the assumption that a) the only reason religions exist is the lack of knowledge and b) that the knowledge we have answers all the questions that people seek answers to when they turn to religion. I think if you question these assumptions then you'll easily start to find the answers. Otherwise see all the other comments.
This article really sounds like it describes an alternate reality to me. Interesting to see how many people in the comments seem to hate self checkouts but here in the UK they seem to work fine. Shops seem to have found the right balance. In the same shop you'll have queues advancing rapidly at self checkouts and people run tills with shorter queues for customers who prefer the human interaction.
Do a lot of people put their voice on the internet "as much as they're able to"? It sounds like that person may post their voice online more than the average person...
Does anyone know what the screen actually says? Just curious.
I think driving your car to the ground is the most environment friendly approach anyway regardless of the type of car you'll buy next.
Yeah if we're both in the same situation maybe but my income Vs your well-being is a different thing isn't it?
I can accept to be a bit less comfortable to help you live in less horrible conditions.
What view are they trying to counter here? I understand all the words of the post and I agree with the logic but I don't see in what situation this argument is useful. Perhaps I'm lucky not to have been exposed to the people for whom it would be useful...
Edit: I saw some very clear answers to my questions after scrolling down a bit. I think I just didn't understand what the term "systemic" meant here.
I'm using something called connect. I'm not sure why I picked this one but it works quite well. Is sync so much better? The hype around it is so impressive I feel I must be missing something.
We were looking at getting an EV without being able to charge it at home. Charging it at public chargers here in the UK would've cost about the same as petrol. But having to rely on the public charging infrastructure in its current state made us decide against it, at least for now.
In my limited experience the issue is often that the "chatbot" doesn't even check what it says now against what it said a few paragraphs above. It contradicts itself in very obvious ways. Shouldn't a different algorithm that adds a some sort of separate logic check be able to help tremendously? Or a check to ensure recipes are edible (for this specific application)? A bit like those physics informed NN.
Sudden increase is key here.