The "at least one" in the prompt is deliberately aggressive, and seems likely to force hallucinations in case an article is definitely error-free. So, while the sample here (running the prompt only once against a small set of articles) would still be too small for it, it might be interesting to investigate using this prompt to produce a kind of article quality metric: If it repeatedly results only in invalid error findings (i.e. what a human reviewer  Disagrees with), that should indicate that the article is less likely to contain factual errors
Like it's vibrating around inside. Bouncing within the bounds of my body. I feel like I am coiling up inside myself.
I get tense when I suppress stims, I get tense when I feel perceived, I freeze to not be perceived (so I suppress stims). It can lead to me being totally frozen.
Add in extra stimulation (i.e. if those people are talking, making noises, moving, etc) then I tense up and try to push away the world even more. Making that feeing of being tense/energized even stronger and subsequently working to freeze myself more (thus trapped to my body).
Maybe I am feeling overwhelmed about needing to do something stupid easy (like eat, or send an email) at the same time. So I'll beat myself up about that while simultaneously keeping myself from being weird (i.e. letting myself release the energy), while trying to shut out other noises/lights/whatever, while worrying about how I'm being perceived/what I'm doing wrong, while............
Anyway, yea. Even without all the added drama, just simply being in a room with other people just sort of zooms me into my body. Maybe because I am more aware of it? Maybe because I can't do what I want with it?
The example that the other commenter gave did not require the user to input the flags. As far as I understand, they mean there would be a number of secondary functions that will call the other with the correct parameter.
I think his behaviour sort of makes sense if you consider how scary it could be for him (bear with me).
He's clearly in the wrong. He knows it. Especially in the court of public opinion; he hit a kid, walking to school. It's broad daylight and it happened at a crosswalk. It's not looking good.
Surely, then, it can't be his fault. Taking responsibility is not an option, it doesn't even cross his mind. If he lashes out, if he berates the person he hit for doing something wrong, maybe he can convince himself it wasn't his fault. Maybe he can convince the girl or the bystanders that it wasn't his fault.
I think this is also why people can be so opposed to bike lanes or other infrastructure that promotes mixed use of roads. When most things are built with only cars in mind, it's easier to blame a pedestrian or cyclist because they seem to be guests in a space for cars.
Do you also value companionship?