I don't see anyone making the claim that it is bad and for all, we know it is op's swing.
Why are you acting like someone said it is bad? Honestly, it feels like it is projection over your own shame over your preferences. But obviously I don't know and I don't claim that it is the case. Just saying, it makes that impression to me.
It is actually worse.
it is known that areas which got access to a formal education (schools), would get quickly much better average IQ score than before.
If just visiting school increases your IQ (some measurements suggest 14 points), then it is clearly not a fundamentale quality.
So even without specifically learning for the test, you can learn for the test.
Do I lose 100 points if I say "merica! Fuck yeah!" When I hear about us news?
That is not true. Bielefeld is not real.
That framing is bs. We have heard of ai screen tools long before there was any ai that would write a half way decent resume.
Well the average is normed to 100. So 120 is not the minimum for above average. The top 9% of population would be above 115iq.
While high IQ is more of a diagnosis than anything, the statistics are real. I don't know why you don't want to consider top 9% as "high".
What is high in your opinion?
I am not promoting an idea. I am just stating simple facts. Just to contextualize the issue. People are underappreciating the relative peacefulness of protests.
Guys, remember protests are the alternative. Even the volent ones are the alternative.
Remember what humans did before we protested.
100% that is why they only appreciate realistic art styles and I guess super trendy stuff like ghibli.
And of course, "appreciate" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.
They are dehumanizing everyone else too.
Can you think of anyone precise and clear enough in their speech that some "needless" repetition and context wouldn't drastically improve your understanding of what they say?
Can you imagine how upset they would be if you took them by their very word and not what they meant?
In their mind, authors (and probably everyone else) are machines. The kindness of trying to truly understand them is not given. They should be "flawless".
I have read books in which the definition of certain words get redefined to be more precise and clear in the communication while making things less verbose. I don't think an ai summary will reliably properly introduce me to the definition on page 100 of a book that took the previous 99 pages to set up the required definitions to understand the definition it gives on page 100.
But I could be wrong.
He was young.
Being young, is nice. Mostly because you don't have to deal with a lot of the issues that e.g. a house, children and maybe the marriage is not as loving as it used to be.
So he misses being young, but instead of realizing that he was just young. He thinks about what was different and as your responses imply, he blames foreigner for the change. As you expressed that he thinks of you as just a girl, he is probably also sexist and the 50s were much more sexist as it still is.
In other words, culture changed, he didn't and he is old.