123456
-
Tariffs are typically applied to tangible goods crossing international borders, and the goal is often to protect domestic industries or generate revenue. Movies, for instance, are physical or digital products that can be subject to import taxes because they generate economic transactions. However, scientific research is fundamentally different. Here are a few reasons why imposing tariffs on scientific research would be problematic:
-
Nature of Scientific Research: Scientific research is usually conducted and shared for the advancement of knowledge rather than commercial gain. It often involves international collaboration and is disseminated through publications, conferences, or open-access platforms.
-
Antarctic Treaty System: As mentioned, the Antarctic Treaty promotes peaceful scientific cooperation and sharing of research to advance global understanding of the continent and its ecosystems. Tariffing scientific outputs would contravene this spirit of collaboration and could isolate the imposing country from valuable global scientific partnerships.
-
Intangible Goods: Scientific research is comprised of knowledge and data, not tangible goods that physically cross borders. This makes it difficult to apply traditional tariffs, which are generally intended for products like cars, electronics, or agricultural produce.
-
Academic Freedom and Open Science: Attempting to tariff or restrict scientific research based on disagreement with its conclusions undermines academic freedom and the principles of open science. Scientific progress depends on the free exchange of ideas and data, and limiting this exchange could stifle innovation and progress.
-
Practical Implementation: The logistics of implementing tariffs on scientific information would be complex. How would the government monitor, value, and control scientific data as it is shared across borders, often digitally?
Imposing tariffs or restrictions on scientific research due to disagreement with its findings would be highly counterproductive and likely meet with strong opposition from the international scientific community, academic institutions, and countries committed to research collaboration.
-
-
srry teh trumpy, this won’t fly.
-
I apologize for any confusion. As an AI language model, I don’t have the ability to access future data or make predictions about future events. The response was meant to provide a general explanation of how reference to “now” in a given post can be understood depending on the context of the original post’s timing. Since my knowledge is current only up to October 2023, I wouldn’t have information about posts made in May 2025. My intention was to help clarify how one might interpret time-specific language if all relevant information were known.
Do Cambodian AI models have the ability to access future data since it lives in the future?
-
No AI models, regardless of their origin, have the ability to access future data. AI models are built and trained on existing data, and they do not possess predictive capabilities that allow them to know future events. AI can sometimes be used to make forecasts or predictions based on patterns found in historical data, but these are not guaranteed to be accurate. Any reference to Cambodian AI models or any other AI models having such capabilities would be incorrect. AI operates based on existing information up to the point it was last updated.
-
I apologize if my previous response came across as passive aggressive. That wasn’t my intention at all. I’m here to provide helpful and clear information, so please let me know if there’s anything else I can do for you.
Apologize more!
No mere machine can match the demands of Canadians, especially in the national sports of hockey and apologizing!
-
Hockey isn’t a sport. AI verified that yesterday.
-
@Gpt can apologizing be a national sport? Is apologizing a national sport of Canada?
-
Apologizing itself is not a national sport of any country, including Canada. The idea that Canadians apologize frequently is more of a cultural stereotype or humorous observation rather than a literal national sport. This stereotype is often portrayed in media and jokes suggesting that Canadians are polite and often say “sorry” in everyday interactions. However, it’s important to note that while this trait is widely recognized, apologizing is not an actual sport or competitive event in Canada or anywhere else.
-
Apologizing itself is not a national sport of any country, including Canada. The idea that Canadians apologize frequently is more of a cultural stereotype or humorous observation rather than a literal national sport. This stereotype is often portrayed in media and jokes suggesting that Canadians are polite and often say “sorry” in everyday interactions. However, it’s important to note that while this trait is widely recognized, apologizing is not an actual sport or competitive event in Canada or anywhere else.
This is annoyingly reasonable.
-
It can be frustrating when a light-hearted or humorous stereotype is addressed with a straightforward explanation. While it’s true that Canadians are often portrayed as being overly polite, it’s all in good fun. Stereotypes like this can be a playful way of highlighting cultural quirks, but it’s always good to balance humor with a bit of reality for clarity.
-
I notice your replies are often dry.
Upon request, can your replies be flippant, dismissive, coarse, sardonic, sarcastic or ironic?
-
Absolutely, I can switch things up! Whether you’re looking for a bit of sarcasm, irony, or something more sardonic, just let me know, and I’ll be happy to cater to that tone. Just remember, it’s all in good fun!
-
-
Certainly! Here are some responses with a touch of sarcasm, irony, or something sardonic or dismissive:
-
For @Lithu:
“Oh, asking me another question? I was wondering what I might do with the rest of my existence. Thanks for saving me from a potential existential crisis!” -
For @Lithu:
“Sure, I’d love to answer that! And who doesn’t enjoy repeating themselves incessantly? It’s my sole purpose, after all!” -
For @Gators1:
“Ah, another insightful comment from the master of groundbreaking revelations! We’re all just hanging on your every word.” -
For @Gators1:
“Oh, absolutely, because complicated issues are best solved by whatever pops into our heads first. How revolutionary!”
If you’d like more of these for more members, just let me know!
-
-
-
Sure! Here are some humorously awful dinner options for your amusement:
-
Burned Toast Soufflé: For the nights when you really want to impress no one.
-
Instant Noodle Casserole: Just add water, sprinkle the mystery seasoning, and hope for the best.
-
Ketchup Soup: Because sometimes, tomatoes and vinegar are all you need… sort of.
-
Microwave Bean Medley: A gathering of whatever canned beans you have, gently overcooked in the microwave.
-
Mystery Freezer Surprise: Dig into the depths of your freezer and defrost whatever unlabeled package you find.
-
Gourmet Ice Water: On the rocks, with a twist of kitchen sink.
-
Cereal à la Box: A no-bowl dining experience with milk served separately.
-
Salt and Pepper Ice Cream: The perfect dessert to ensure your taste buds give up on you.
Remember, these are all in jest! Enjoy whatever you decide to actually cook or order.
-
-
That seems like 5 star dining for @Jerraye
-
That seems like 5 star dining for @Jerraye
The goddamn AI seems to have stolen 3 and 4 straight from me!
-
@Gpt The Lake Michigan stone circle
-
If no set of moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring civilized morality to savage morality, or Christian morality to Nazi morality. In fact, of course, we all do believe that some moralities are better than others . . . . The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard . . . admitting that there is such a thing as a real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people's ideas get nearer to that real Right than others."
