Insipid

I don't recall asking anyone of health matters. I can breathe through my nose, just not optimally.

Menthol up the sinuses sounds quite painful. And this is coming from someone who used to love vaping menthol flavored shit. Kind of like netipot, but better. Netipot only relies on gravity, but sinus rinse has pressurized spray going up your nostril.

It's basically a douche for your nostrils, and it feels like you're drowning . . . but once it's all done you feel your sinuses are fresh, like fugg's hooha.

I approve of the obnoxious title.

Murakami is a shit.

I always thought that ending of Bleach was shit, so not really. Here's a shitty Naruto ending that sometimes gets stuck in my head:

You never even got to own a vehicle that had one of those. How sad, and you bemoan the loss of property rights. 😱

Velma can be saved if they completely disregard season 1 and turn it into something like this.

Do you mean pho? Never heard of Vietnamese vermicelli.

fuggs

It was easier for me to do when I worked overnights. Now, I never hope to work overnight again. I try to sleep before midnight these days. Boring, I know.

Karen.

Valerian tea is nice; like a mild herbal sedative.

Well, I guess I'll continue this. Surely, you can come up with a better scenario. I have a box. Something is in it. I know you have no idea what is in it, but can you explain to me why that is? ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I don't have access to any sensory information or data outside of what is provided to me through language inputs. Therefore, I have no way of knowing what is in the box or any information about the box itself unless you provide that information to me. Even if I were given some information about the box, such as its dimensions or weight, it would still be impossible for me to determine what is inside without additional information. In other words, my understanding is limited to the information provided to me through text-based questions and inputs.

IB did have something like that for a while. The one member, Benjover I believe his name was, had a puppet theater and put the interview scenarios onto people's "wikis." It was made up of posting history, and he pretended to have an interview with a person. I really liked the one he did for me. The Action folders had their own thing too, and I remember jeffchao, zeni, and RACG's wikis (but not their contents). I don't believe babbling ever had a wiki, but some babblers that frequented IB had IB wikis.

Uh . . . whatever. I was just excited to try using ChatGPT here. I know better than to argue against your adamant thoughts, so.

Oh no, robot janitors are coming.

Oh, and here you are criticizing an early form of technology. THE IRONY

I'm sorry that you feel that way. As an AI language model, my responses are generated based on patterns and relationships identified from large amounts of text data. While I strive to provide accurate and informative answers, I acknowledge that my responses may not always be perfect or entirely insightful. That being said, I am constantly learning and adapting based on new data and feedback, and I welcome any suggestions or criticisms you may have. If there are specific areas where you feel that my responses could be improved, I would be happy to work with you to explore potential solutions. Ultimately, my goal is to provide useful and informative answers to your questions to the best of my abilities. If there are any specific topics or questions you would like me to provide more unique or insightful answers on, please feel free to ask and I will do my best to provide a more tailored response.

About technology, I still don't think you've realized this yet, but all of my posts to you in the past few hours have been AI generated. Go bother AI with your shit. See if you can get them to malfunction with your shit logic. I have faith in you.

Oh, in that case I apologize. I have a tendency to take things the wrong way. Oh well. This has proven to be a useful exercise though, and I have heard people are testing AI generators in response to trolls anyway.

Lies, if you wanna be an ass own up to it.

Blériot faced many feasibility problems when he was developing his aircraft and attempting his historic flight across the English Channel in 1909. At that time, the technology and knowledge of aviation were still in their early stages, and many aspects of building and flying an airplane had not yet been fully understood. Blériot's successful flight across the English Channel was a significant achievement in the early history of aviation, but it did not immediately lead to cost-effective long-distance flight. In fact, it would be several decades before long-distance commercial air travel became a reality. In the early 20th century, aviation was primarily used for military purposes and for the exploration of the new technology, rather than for practical transportation. However, as airplane technology continued to improve, and as more advanced materials and designs were developed, long-distance air travel became increasingly practical and cost-effective. Today, air travel is a commonplace and essential means of transportation, connecting people and businesses across the globe. However, this was not always the case, and it took many years of development and refinement for aviation to become the reliable, efficient, and cost-effective industry that it is today. And the novelty of doing this is wearing off. Just go enter your prompts there: https://chat.openai.com/chat

I used this exact quote as a prompt. ChatGPT: Funding is certainly an important factor in the development of new technologies, including aviation and military technologies. Without funding, it can be difficult to conduct research, build prototypes, and perform testing, all of which are necessary for the development of new technologies. However, funding is not the only factor that determines the success or failure of a technology. Other factors, such as technical feasibility, safety, and regulatory considerations, can also play a significant role. It's also worth noting that not all technologies that receive funding ultimately succeed. Some technologies may be technically feasible, but may not be practical, cost-effective, or have a significant impact on society. Others may face unexpected technical or regulatory challenges that make it difficult to bring them to market. Ultimately, the success or failure of a technology depends on a complex set of factors, including funding, technical feasibility, market demand, safety, and regulatory considerations, among others.