Pandas is a mess though.

While this isn't the ereader for me (I need a larger screen and buttons), I absolutely love the idea and passion behind this project. I will look into supporting, if finances allow, as its something I could easily gift to younger members of the family.

Huge congrats getting it to this point!

And your also trying to twist my words in the opposite direction. I'm here claiming that someone's body belongs to only them. And your response is to say, if its only yours, why don't you go cheat??? Come on, this is straw manning at its finest.

Your view comes from entitlement. You have a right to your partners body because a book says so. I say different. I have a responsibility to my partner because we are in love and build our beliefs together.

Your view teaches subservience. You can add all the context you want, but at the end of the day, there is a line that says "your body belongs to your partner". And that line is used to subjugate.

Whereas a healthy couple would start from the respect that they don't own each other, and then build the boundaries that they are comfortable with.

> "marry and enjoy sex" is what Paul is trying to say

This is your interpretation and shows your own bias. I read it as "you must have consent from your partner to withhold your body from them". Which is revolting and coercive.

Your interpretation of this passage is reading far more into things and doing far more justifying than mine is

A progressive system is not built off "I'll do what I want to you but I also will let you do it back". That conveniently ignores that there is still an entirely non-consenting party in this.

Your body belongs to you. Your partners body belongs to them. And religious institutions teaching the opposite of this is what has lead to decades of marital rape and entitlement. I call that very very far from a progressive system

The wife doesn’t have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise also the husband doesn’t have authority over his own body, but the wife does.

I'm so glad this religion of peace sees consent as profoundly unimportant

Can't imagine doing it any other way

And that's on top of the vastly simpler syntax compared to what's being shown here

2. I check my ontology for the answer, probably in a dashboard, and it takes 5 seconds. I have a link I can freely share around my enterprise and I haven't spent token costs.

Whats more, when I have sent my agent out to some tasks (go find out what revenue we're leaving on the table by not selling spot contracts to our biggest customers) my ontology gives me a few bits of data to validate the agents work against. For humans and AI to work together, they need the same context layer

1. While AI is capable of driving massive value, chatbots are very rarely the solution

2. You need much more than this sort of text data to represent an enterprise. Timeseries, SAP (and other ERPs), and general relational data is part of building a knowledge graph, ontology, etc

3. Storing it the way this article presents makes it usable for agents, but not humans. Whereas the point of knowledge graph, ontology, etc is to create the same layer for both humans and AI to interact with

I can write code like: penguin_sizes <- select(penguins, weight, height)

Here, weight and height are columns inside the dataframe. But I can refer to them as if they were objects in the environment (I., e without quotes) because the select function looks for them inside the penguins dataframe (it's first argument)

This is a very simple example but it's used extensively in some R paradigms

> RMCP has been tested with real-world scenarios achieving 100% success rate: