Not to mention, so I can stop seeing pictures of him, pressing his fingertips together in front of his face like he’s some fucking pensive genius. I’m goddamn tired of it
The vast majority of these users aren’t paying for subscription, and many advertisers have dropped it. Meanwhile it needs to pay additional debt and interest from the acquisition itself.
It is on its death bed already. All it takes is for the owner to realize it’s not worth taking losses over it anymore.
All these people are terminally attached to the people they are connected to on the platform. Moving over is easy. Convincing your friends to move along with you is hard. As a creator, convincing your whole follower base to move along with you is nearly impossible.
No offense but this is so goddamn stupid. We don’t live in a bubble and unfortunately their actions may have an impact as they ripple through the business and political world.
Intentionally censoring news because “lol get wrecked Jeff Bezos” is hurting no one but yourself.
He also blames a ridiculously exclusive school in Cali for the kids of ridiculouslu wealthy parents for her forming her own opinions about stuff. It’s the same as other conservatives claiming college brainwashes kids.
Also, we can take the “full blown communist” part as seriously as any other time a billionaire says it. She could have said something like “maybe rich people should pay more tax” and get that label from them.
We want you to be well-educated, smart, and be a critical thinker that can think fo…wait…no, stop…not like that. We want you to critically think…but also arrive at the same correct conclusions as us…wtf, are you doing?
They don’t even pretend to want critical thinking…
That was the big push behind “no child left behind”. A focus on rote memorization and following rules.
Because funding was tied to scores, teachers had to focus on what was being tested. And since critical thinking wasn’t tested, it became the lowest priority.
The “boots on the ground” conservatives may not be smart, but the ones at the top of the movement 100% understand what’s going on. And they’ve spent decades trying to increase their numbers.
One reason why Musk bought Twitter this week is because he had little choice. The world’s richest man spent months trying to back out of the $44 billion purchase agreement he originally signed in April. But the uncertainty was so disruptive to Twitter’s business that it sued him in the Delaware Court of Chancery to force the deal’s completion, and a judge gave a Friday deadline to complete the deal or face a November trial that Musk was likely to lose.
This is all bullshit. Self-aggrandizing lies to give the appearance that this massive failure was all in the plan. The guy was trying to play games with stocks and got caught. He’s a dumbass with no idea how the business he didn’t want to own but was forced to buy in the end works. It’s not deeper than that.
I’m sure his daughter hating him is very upsetting but it’s not why he set 40 billion dollars on fire.
Why not both? Because you’re absolutely right that he got fucked on a bad gamble and then tried to save face, but I can also easily see him trying to buy stuff just to stick it to the left. (But in all reality again you’re probably pretty solely right lol)
I question if he actually got fucked on a gamble or if he was just inept and all of his decisions were largely a whim rather than based on some true data and research.
His daughter transitioning and being liberal drove him to the far right on Twitter, because he couldn’t accept it.
Those people kept telling him he should buy it to “save” it.
He started talking about it, and that’s where your article picks up.
It wasn’t just a whim, he had reason to start talking about buying Twitter, then was forced to actually go through with it.
He thinks he’s “saving” it because conservatives believe everyone thinks like them and are just scared to admit it, but his intentional actions are killing it.
A brain scan can reveal a person’s political leaning with like 80% accuracy, and I can’t stress enough how crazy that number is, the remaining 20% usually just aren’t political or in the middle.
It’s done by looking at the size/activity of the amygdala and the prefrontal cortex.
A conservative will have more amygdala activity, which is our flight or fight response.
A progressive will have a larger preferential cortex, the part that gives us logic and empathy.
It’s always important to mention that this isn’t permanent, our brains are like muscles, use certain parts and they get more active and even physically larger (but obviously on a small scale).
We know that because there’s been studies on London taxi drivers. Before training their brains are normal. But since they have to memorize every street in London, by the time they’re certified there’s a noticable difference in the part of the brain that handles navigation.
So it’s not like theyre a lost cause.
And why republican leaders are so hell vent on removing “liberal arts” from schools. The people leading aren’t idiots, they’re trying to make more conservatives
Or maybe you should try engaging others in good faith instead of getting defensive someone challenged a notion that makes you feel superior to conservatives.
The blocking feature on Lemmy is as broken as Reddit and he can still reply to my messages whenever he wants, I just can’t see it.
Which is beef #56484783 I have with Lemmy. What I said should be silly, but it’s not, because the core software doesn’t fix the issues Reddit had especially with blocking. Blocking should give one the last word, but it doesn’t.
And that’s ignoring the fact that block evading is trivially easy as he can just bounce back here with an account on another instance, and even if a mod bans him, he can keep coming back with VPNs.
That last point is really interesting. Conservatives and right-wingers can’t grasp that other people don’t think like they do. I remember during the January 6th insurrection how all the people doing it really seemed to believe they would be seen as heroes. It’s like they had no idea over half of the US didn’t agree with them.
Maybe a bit of an extreme comparison, but it reminds me of when Donald Trump, also in the US, actually got elected president there. I remember thinking he looked quite wan in those early news clips. Like he was shocked to have actually won, and was rapidly having to adjust his expectations of the future.
But the second half of the article, where he says that AI chatbots will replace Google search because they give more accurate information, that simply is not true.
I already go to ChatGPT more than Google. If you pay for it then the latest version can access the internet and if it doesn’t know the answer to something it’ll search the internet for you. Sometimes I come across a large clickbait page and I just give ChatGPT the link and tell it to get the information from it for me.
ChatGPT powers Bing Chat, which can access the internet and find answers for you, no purchase necessary (if you’re not on edge, you might need to install a browser extension to access it as they are trying to push edge still).
It often brings up bad solutions to a problem and checking the sources it references shows it regulary misses the gist of these sources.
There sources it selects are often not the ones I end up using. They are starting point, but not the best starting point.
What it is good for is for finding content when I don’t know the terminology of the domain. It is a starting point ready to lead me astray with exquisitely written content.
That’s what’s usually gets said about lots of alternative fusion energy generation methods that later turn out to be impossible to have net-positive energy generation.
And this is just one example. Another example: tons of medical compounds end up dropper at the medical testing stage because of their nasty side effects or it turns out their “positive” effects are indistinguisheable from the placebo effect.
The point being that you can’t actually extrapolative from “neat concept that shows potential” even to merelly “will works”, much less to “will be a great success”.
PS: Equally, one can’t just say it’s not going to be a great success - being a “neat concept that shows potential” has a pretty low informational content when it comes to predicting the future, worse so when there are people monetarilly heavilly invested into it who have a strong interest in making it look like a “neat concept that shows potential” whilst hiding any early stage problem.
You are mixing sci-fi level of cutting edge basic research (fusion), with commercial products (chatgpt). They are 2 very different type of proof of concepts.
And both will likely revolutionize human society. Fusion will simply commercially become a thing in 30/50 years. AI has been on the market for years now. Generative models are also few years old. They are simply becoming better and now new products can be built on top of them
This specific tech you seem to be emotionally invested in is no different from the rest in this sense because it still faces in the real world the very same kind of risks and pitfalls as the rest - there are possible internal pitfalls inherent to every new technology (i.e. a problem we never knew about because we never used it with so many people in the real world before, becomes visible with widespread use) and there are possible external pitfalls inherent to how it fits in the complex world we live in (i.e. it turns out the use cases don’t make quite as much economic sense as was first tought or it indirectly generates more problems than it solves).
Such Process and Fit risks are true for every early stage “revolutionary” tech (i.e. we never did it before, now that we do it, we discover problems we were not at all aware of before) and is why the bean counters rarelly put money in revolutionary and instead go mainly for incremental improvements on proven tech. At times one or more of such “we had no idea this could happen problems” turn out to be surmountable, sometimes they’re not.
In the case of LLMs, the two risky problems from what I’ve heard are in how LLMs being trained in material which includes LLM-generated material actually get worse and the other is the so-called Hallucinations, which are really just the natural side effect of them being Language Models hence all that they do is generate compositions of language tokens that pass for human generated language, with no reasoning involved hence cannot validate through inductive or deductive reasoning said “compositions of language tokens”.
Unless you want to deny decades of History in Tech, you can’t logically extrapolate from an early “looks light it migh be a success” to “it will be a success”, especially the era of overhype we live in.
People who do so aren’t smart enough to use internet anyway. With or without AI it wouldn’t change anything for them, they stay stupid and will continue acting stupid
It depends what you’re using it for as to whether you need to fact check stuff.
I’m a software developer and if I can’t remember how to do an inner join in SQL then I can easier ask ChatGPT to do it for me and I will know if it is right or not as this is my field of expertise.
If I’m asking it how to perform open heart surgery on my cat, then sure I’m probably going to want several second opinions as that is not my area of expertise.
When using a calculator do you use two different calculators to check that the first one isn’t lying?
Also, you made a massive assumption that the stuff OP was using it for was something that warranted fact checking.
I can see why you would use it. Why would I want to search Google for inner joins sql when it is going to give me so many false links that don’t give me the info in need in a concise manner.
Even time wasting searches have just been ruined. Example: Top Minecraft Java seeds 1.20. Will give me pages littered with ads or the awful page 1-10 that you must click through.
Many websites are literally unusable at this point and I use ad blockers and things like consent-o-matic. But there are still pop up ads, sub to our newsletter, scam ads etc. so much so that I’ll just leave the site and forego learning the new thing I wanted to learn.
They also aren’t valuable for asking direct questions like this.
There value comes in with call and response discussions. Being able to pair program and work through a problem for example. It isn’t about it spitting out a working problem, but about it being able to assess a piece of information in a different way than you can, which creates a new analysis of the information.
It’s extraordinarily good at finding things you miss in text.
Yeah. There’s definitely tasks suited to LLMs. I’ve used it to condense text, write emails, and even project planning because they do give decently good ideas if you prompt them right.
Not sure I’d use them for finding information though, even with the ability to search for it. I’d much rather just search for it myself so I can select the sources, then have the LLM process it.
I found it more tempting to accept the initial answers I got from GPT4 (and derivatives) because they are so well written. I know there are more like me.
With the advent of working LLMs, reference manuals should gain importance too. I check them more often than before because LLMs have forced me to. Could be very positive.
I found it more tempting to accept the initial answers I got from GPT4 (and derivatives) because they are so well written. I know there are more like me.
With the advent of working LLMs, reference manuals should gain importance too. I check them more often than before because LLMs have forced me to. Could be very positive.
They'll need to make money with a cheap cost-per-sale, so they'll put ads on the site. Then they'll put promoted content in the AI chat, but it's okay because they'll say it's promoted. Eventually it won't even say it's promoted and it will just be all ads, just like every other tech company.
Why? Because monetization leads directly to enshittification, because the users stop being the customers.
When I tried it it was never able to give me the sources of what it said. And it has given me way too many made up answers to just trust it without reasons. Having to search for sources after it said something has made me skip the middle man(machine).
Yeah, because people selling AI products have a great track record on predicting how their products will develop in the future. Because of that, Teslas don’t have steering wheels any more, because Full Self Driving drives people incident-free from New York to California since 2017.
The thing with AI development is, that it rapidly gets to 50% of the desired solution, but then gets stuck there, not being able to get consistently good enough that you can actually rely on it.
I don’t really understand what it means. If the product is unreliable people won’t use it, and everything will stay as it is now. It’s not a big issue. But It is already pretty reliable for many use cases.
Realistically the real future problem will be monetization, not features
Well, here's the thing. How often are you willing to dismiss the misses because of the hits? Your measure of unreliability is now subject to bias because you're no longer assessing the bot's answers objectively.
I don’t expect to be 100% correct. I have realistic expectations built on experience. Any source isn’t 100% reliable. A friend is 50% reliable, an expert maybe 95. A random web page probably 40… I don’t know.
I built up my strategy to address uncertainty by applying critical thinking. It is not much different than in the past. By experience, chatgpt 4 is currently more reliable than a random web page that comes in the first page of a Google search. Unless I exactly search for a trustworthy source, such as nhs or guardian.
The main problem is the drop in quality of search engines. I usually start with chatgpt 4 without plugins to focus my research. Once I understand what I should look for, I use search engines for focused search on official websites or documentation pages.
The issue with reliability is a completely different one between web search and AI.
If you search something on Google, there are quite a few ways you can judge the quality of the answer with “metadata” around it. If you find a scientific paper, it’s probably more reliable than a post on a parents forum. If the source is a quality newspaper or Wikipedia, that’s also more on the reliable side, but some conspiracy theorist website is not. And if the source is some kind of forum or Q&A site, wrong answers often have comments under them that correct the error.
Also, you can follow multiple links and take a wider sample on the topic that way.
With AI that’s not possible. Whether it is wrong or correct, the AI will give you an answer in the exact same format, with the same self-confident tone. You basically need to know the correct answer to know whether the answer is correct.
Sure, you can re-roll and ask it again, but that doesn’t make the result more likely to be correct.
For example, I asked ChatGPT which Harry Potter chapter is the longest. It happily gave me a chapter, but it wasn’t the longest. So I asked again and again and again, and each time it gave me a new wrong answer, every time with made-up word counts.
This is the reason I am suggesting people to give a try to perplexity.ai to understand how these tools will work in the near future. And why I don’t understand the reason I am downvoted for that.
Current “free” chatgpt was created as a proof of concept, not as a finished, complete solution for humanity issue. What we have now is a showcase of llm, for openai to improve the product via human feedback, for everyone else to enjoy what is it already now a very useful tool.
But this kind of LLM is intended to be a building block of the future solutions. To enable interactivity, summarization, analysis features within larger product with many features.
If you don’t have paid version of chatgpt, again, try perplexity.ai with the copilot feature, to see a (still imperfect, under development) proof of concept of the near future of AI assisted research.
And more tools will come, that will make easier to navigate the huge amount of information that is the main issue of modern internet.
This is the reason I am suggesting people to give a try to perplexity.ai to understand how these tools will work in the near future. And why I don’t understand the reason I am downvoted for that.
Current “free” chatgpt was created as a proof of concept, not as a finished, complete solution for humanity issue. What we have now is a showcase of llm, for openai to improve the product via human feedback, for everyone else to enjoy what is it already now a very useful tool.
But this kind of LLM is intended to be a building block of the future solutions. To enable interactivity, summarization, analysis features within larger product with many features.
If you don’t have paid version of chatgpt, again, try perplexity.ai with the copilot feature, to see a (still imperfect, under development) proof of concept of the near future of AI assisted research.
And more tools will come, that will make easier to navigate the huge amount of information that is the main issue of modern internet.
I’d say they at least give more immediately useful info. I’ve got to scroll past 5-8 sponsored results and then the next top results are AI generated garbage anyways.
Even though I think he’s mostly right, the AI techbro gameplan is obvious. Position yourself as a better alternative to Google search, burn money by the barrelful to capture the market, then begin enshitification.
In fact, enshitification has already begun because; responses are comparatively expensive to generate. The more users they onboard, the more they have to scale back the quality of those responses.
If you try “copilot” option, you get the full experience. It’s pretty neat because it allows for brainstorming.
It is still a very “preliminary version” experience (it often gets stuck in a small bunch of websites), because the whole thing is just few months old. But it has a lot of potential
because they give more accurate information, that simply is not true.
From my experience with BingChat, it’s completely true. BingChat will search with Bing and summarize the results, providing sources and all. And the results are complete garbage most of the time, since search results are filled with garbage.
Meanwhile if you ask ChatGPT, which doesn’t have Internet access, you get a far more sophisticated answer and correct answer. You can also answer follow up questions.
Web search is an absolutely terrible place for accurate information. ChatGPT in contrast consumes all the information out there, which makes it much harder for incorrect information to slip in, as information needs to be replicated frequently to stick around. It can and often is still wrong of course, but it is far better than any single website you’ll find.
And of course all of this is still very early days for LLMs. GPT was never build with correctness in mind, it was build to autocomplete text, everything else was patchwork after the fact. The future of search is AI, no doubt about that.
Chatgpt flat out hallucinates quite frequently in my experience. It never says “I don’t know / that is impossible / no one knows” to queries that simply don’t have an answer. Instead, it opts to give a plausible-sounding but completely made-up answer.
A good AI system wouldn’t do this. It would be honest, and give no results when the information simply doesn’t exist. However, that is quite hard to do for LLMs as they are essentially glorified next-word predictors. The cost metric isn’t on accuracy of information, it’s on plausible-sounding conversation.
Ask chatgpt “tell me the biography of the famous painter sndrtj” to see how good the bot is at hallucinating an incredible realistic story that never happened.
You don’t even have to make stuff up to get it to hallucinate. I once asked chat gpt who the original bass player was for Metallica was, and it repeatedly gave me the wrong answer, and even at one point said “Dave Ellefson.”
Even if AI magically got to the point of providing accurate and good results, I would still profoundly object to using it.
First, it's a waste of resources. The climate impact of AI is enough of a reason why we should leave it dead until we live in a world with limitless energy and water.
Second, I don't trust a computer to select my sources for me. Sometimes you might have to go through a few pages, but with traditional search engines at least you are presented with a variety of sources and you can use your god given ability of critical thinking.
The climate change has become the new CP go to argument to condone the stupidest reasoning. Just like blocking Torrent sites to prevent CP, let’s block AI to prevent climate change.
Of course there are always challenges, especially with how results are ranked. I have been extremely dissatisfied with the development of search engines for years now. I find Duckduckgo to at least be less bad than Google. Currently I'm checking out Kagi, which at least lets me rank sources myself. Still on the fence though - it does seem to flirt more with AI than with transparency, which has me worried.
But absolutely, it's not that I think the current state of search engines is great either - it just seems to me everything is getting worse and the Internet has entered a death spiral between AI and the enshittification of social media.
Then again, maybe I just reached that age where you start hating everything.
That’s LLMs, which is what is necessary for Chat-AI (the first “L” in there quite literally stands for Large).
Remove the stuff necessary to process natural human language and those things tend to be way smaller, especially if they’re just trained using the user’s own actions.
I mean most top searches are AI generated bullshit nowadays anyway. Adding Reddit to a search is basically the only decent way to get a proper answer. But those answers are not much more reliable than ChatGPT. You have to use the same sort of skepticism and fact checking regardless.
Most of the results after the first page on Google are usually the same as the usable results, just mirrored on some shady site full of ads and malware.
I dunno. There have been quite a few times where I am trying to do something on my computer and I could either spend 5 minutes searching, refining, digging through the results…or I can ask chatgpt and have a workable answer in 5 seconds. And that answer is precisely tailored to my specifics. I don’t have to assume/research how to modify a similar answer to fit my situation.
Obviously it’s dependent on the types of information you need, but for coding, bash scripting, Linux cli, or anything of that nature LLMs have been great and much better than Google searches.
Okay but the problem with that is that LLMs not only don’t have any fidelity at all, they can’t. They are analogous to the language planning centre of your brain, which has to be filtered through your conscious mind to check if it’s talking complete crap.
People don’t realise this and think the bot is giving them real information, but it’s actually just giving them spookily realistic word-salad, which is a big problem.
Of course you can fix this if you add some kind of context engine for them to truly grasp the deeper and wider meaning of your query. The problem with that is that if you do that, you’ve basically created an AGI. That may first of all be extremely difficult and far in the future, and second of all it has ethical implications that go beyond how effective of a search engine it is.
Sure but if that becomes the norm then a huge segment of the population will believe the first thing the bot tells them. You might be okay, but we’re talking about an entire society filtering its knowledge through an incredibly effective misinformation engine that will lie rather than say “I don’t know”, because that simple phrase requires a level of self-awareness that eludes a lot of actual people, much less a chatbot.
That’s already a problem. The thing j think about is what will serve me better. Google or chat AI. The risk of bad information exists with both. But an AI based search engine is something that will be much better at finding context, retiring results geared towards my goals and I suspect less prone to fuckery because AI must be trained as a whole
Except we already know that LLMs lie and people in general are not aware of this. Children are using these. When you as a person have to sift through results you get a sense of what information is out there, how sparse it is, etc. When a chatbot word-vomits the first thing it can think of to satisfy your answer, you get none of that, and perhaps you should be aware of that yourself. You don’t really seem to be, it’s like you think the saved time is more important than context, which apparently I have to remind you - the bot doesn’t know context.
When you say:
an AI based search engine is something that will be much better at finding context
It makes me think that you really don’t understand how these bots work, and that’s the real danger.
We’re talking in this thread about this wider systemic issue, not just what suits you personally regardless of how much it gaslights you, but if that’s all you care about then you do you I guess ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Lie is a weird way to describe it. They hallucinate answers which is give you an answer they based on probabilities. Its not lying its just lacking in data to give an accurate and correct a answer which will get better with more training and data. Everything else we have so far gets worse. Google isn’t what it was 15 years ago.
I use chatgpt every day to find out answers over google. Its better in almost every single way to get information from and I can only imagine what it’s capable of once it can interface with crawlers.
Did you read my last little bit there? I said it depends on the information you are looking for. I can paste error output from my terminal into Google and try to find an answer or I can paste it into chatgpt and be, at the very least pointed in the right direction almost immediately, or even given the answer right away vs getting a stackoverflow link and parsing the responses and comments and following secondary and tiertiary links.
I absolutely understand the stochastic parrot conundrum with LLMs. They have significant drawbacks and they are far from perfect, but then neither is are Google search results. There is still a level of skepticism you have to apply.
One of the biggest mistakes people make is the idea that LLMs and websearching is a zero sum affair. They don’t replace each other. They compliment each other. Imo, google is messing up with their “ai” integration into Google search. It sets the expectation that it is an equivalent function.
I suspect that client-side AI might actually be the kind of thing that filters the crap from search results and actually gets you what you want.
That would only be Chat-AI if it turns out natural language queries are better to determine the kind of thing the user is looking for than people trying to craft more traditional query strings.
I’m thinking each person would can train their AI based on which query results they went for in unfiltered queries, with some kind of user provided feedback of suitability to account for click-bait (i.e. somebody selecting a result because it looks good but it turns out its not).
Yeah, SS would have stormed him out of the area and into a safe place within moments of that shit. There’s no way they’d have cleared the area. No one would have known if there were a second or third shooter.
Now they’re saying someone is dead and they got the shooter?
What? Are you fucking delusional? I understand brown people are not really people for you guys there, but do you realize how many people indirectly and directly “these” people have killed in Syria alone, counting only cases of being simply too lazy?
Killing two people for fucking presidency? You think it’s unrealistic?
Anyway, the answer to the question “how Machiavellian” is “fully” for everybody participating in politics, because we are still homo sapiens and our time is just as Machiavellian as Machiavelli’s time, there are no naive people there, and if there are no poisonings and assassinations left and right there, that’s for the same reason only there are no nukings left and right on the map, not because they are moral.
I understand brown people are not really people for you guys
What the fuck… ?
How am I delusional for not thinking this was staged? The moving parts required for it to be staged are an order of magnitude more complex and voluminous than it just being a lone nut with an AR-15. Unless you have some actual solid verifiable evidence that calls the boring reality of the situation into question, I’d maybe dial down the rhetoric a tad.
I mean it might have been, but with the modern insanity around politics and guns and violence, and the general unhinged nature of the population generally, it’s equally or more likely to be some deranged person with a gun. WHY for the love of god add to the chaos by speculating without any evidence yet? Does it help?
Because speculation is all we have with someone like Trump who seemingly failed upward with his every move. Do you think we’re going to ever know what really happened? This shit was clean. Despite the fact that he was allowed to stand and shake a defiant fist moments later, without knowing if there were more shooters. How did his secret service know the area was secure? In reality, he would have been rushed to safety within a minute of the shooting.
Yeah. Here’s what speculation allows for;
• Gets found guilty 34 times over? Gets more followers.
• Gets found guilty of sexual assault. Gets more followers
• Gets tied to Epstein. Gets more followers
• Gets shot at. Wins an election.
There is no stopping that fat fuck because theres no limit to American ignorance.
While not it's not mentioned in this article, he actually said he took mushrooms around 48 hrs before getting onto the plane, which would mean his trip was definitely over. He said he thought he was dreaming, which would probably be better attributed to the fact he hadn't slept in around 40hrs. I suspect this is a case of "the mushies did it!" being reported over questions of "how was someone in that bad of mental shape was in the cockpit of a plane? " being asked.
My somewhat cynical view is that the airlines are trying to aim for damage control as much as possible, and are tying to throw red herirngs to divert from failings on the airlines part. In this case, shrooms. If the airlines get looked at, I suspect the whole fact that he was probably that sleep deprived and it wasn't seen as not normal could lead to actual action against airlines.
They’re trying to shift the blame entirely to the pilot (who was primarily at fault) rather than their policies that allowed a pilot to fly on no sleep for 40 hours
100%. Not to mention you don’t lose your mind on shrooms, and the trip is over in a few hours. Even if you were to lose contact with reality on shrooms, you wouldn’t have the capability to carry out anything. This feel like a weird deflect authored by someone who knows nothing about mushrooms.
Exactly. If you’re taking enough shrooms to “lose your mind” (aka ego death), then you’re not making it off the floor of your living room, let alone getting through security, getting onto an airplane, and acting normal enough to be let into the cockpit. You’re not even going to be aware that you have a body.
And if you haven’t taken enough for that, then you’re still never going to honestly believe you’re in a dream. That’s not how psychedelics work.
48 hours is too long to blame on an acid trip usually (from my experience) let alone a mushroom trip. Maybe doses and potency were different but I’ve done up to 4 tabs of acid and 1/4 oz of shrooms (different trips) both with some bud smoked, and never had much effect after I slept. From acid sleeping took much longer but not over 40 hours, I wasn’t at a rave doing amphetamines or anything. Not those nights anyways.
I will say people are different and I was well down the road of experimentation by the time I did those strongest trips.
Oh forgot to add if they didn’t sleep that would really fuck someone up. I used to party for days and I made day 3 my limit for good reason, so 48 hours is start of day 3.
You know how I can confidently say that anyone who is against the right to choose hates women?
Because doesn’t matter how much they claim to love children, and how many shenanigans they pull like this one, I know for a fact that not a single one of them would ever in their whole life even entertain the idea of charging a man who masturbated with mass murder.
Since then, Yvette’s pulled the same “trick” four times, although she insists she doesn’t see herself as a shoplifter and is “a goody goody” by nature: “I earn a reasonable amount in my senior position, drive an SUV, and live in a desirable postcode. Before my divorce, our girls attended private school.”
This kind of ÜberKarens are the reason we can’t get nice stuff. Actions of people like her will be used to crack down on people that literally can’t afford basic needs and to reduce the privacy of everyone else, while making the service shittier at the same time.
And she has the gall of calling her self a “goody goody”. Bullshit, no one so self entitled is a nice person.
Yeah, bitch decided to commit crime 5 times, boast about her career and wealth while pretend that is the feature of good people, then “teach” others how to commit the same crime. Bitch have no shame nor dignity. Makes me wonder what sort of white collar crime she also committed.
Honestly I don’t even really care that much that she’s shoplifting, I find it hard to sympathize with a multi-billion-dollar company losing a small fraction of their profits.
But then she insists that she’s not actually a shoplifter, and brags about her income and how she’s a great person as if she’s trying to separate herself from “the bad shoplifters”, which gives me the same vibes as the article “The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion”.
I know right? If anything she's worse; she's the one not doing it out of necessity. She actually has a realistic choice.
Not that I have much sympathy for the supermarkets but fuck me, don't pretend you're better than the next person doing it, especially when they might only be doing it out of necessity.
Articles this inflammatory in nature generally are highly fabricated. A notable example is the Ken Waks “I quit Google in two separate occasions because I’m that brilliant.”
The boot you feel is the biological reality that we all need to eat (and more than just eat), and almost all of us need someone else to grow/raise/ sometimes prepare that food (and more than just food) for us. Supermarkets operate on extremely thin margins, and so do most farms, and so too most food factories. Most of them would go out of business if they cut prices by 5%.
People stealing from supermarkets cost the other shoppers around them, either through raised prices, or closed stores, if it’s bad enough. This is a major reason for the “food desert” phenomena, and why wealthy areas typically have cheaper groceries.
This "technology" community is quickly becoming just as bad as the one on reddit.
The insane ravings and personal drama of a lunatic billionaire isn't news about technology.
Even news about Twitter itself isn't technology news. Twitter is a business that sells services. They don't make or contribute to any types of technology.
The only thing that Twitter technology related is that their business operates on the internet. That's it. Chewy.com or NYTimes.com is just as much "technology" as Twitter is.
Yeah this is just the new Society Pages of the rich and famous (ie people whose job is managing your attention).
Even my beloved Paris Marx, of the Tech Won’t Save Us podcast (recommended), can’t help themself from constantly crowing about Musk’s latest tort against humanity.
They don’t make or contribute to any types of technology.
That part isn’t completely true. When they created the bootstrap framework it changed how many people built websites. They can and have contributed to technology. However, your point is valid that news about Twitter is business news.
It isn’t though. There is maybe a 0.01% chance that this was a false flag.
I know what’s happening is hard to swallow, and the ramifications are deeply troubling, but try not to succumb to baseless conspiracy theories.
There’s plenty of motive. An attendee was killed. The shooter was killed by Secret Service. There’s not really a reason to think this didn’t actually happen, except for cognitive dissonance.
Your point is that you think you’re allowed to spread misinformation if that misinformation sounds like it maybe could be true. This is the rationale of every conspiracy theorist ever. You’re not making an intellectually honest point here.
If your point is that you’re a dishonest person who cares more about narrative than facts, point received.
I think being unsure either way makes perfect sense. You gotta admit it doesn’t really line up with Trump’s character to be posing for the cameras if he’s actually being shot at. Though tou’re not wrong to say, that that isn’t proof of anything. It’s subjective feeling.
But, I think saying it’s entirely unlikely this was orchestrated isn’t right either.
Well, a conspiracy requires evidence, and without evidence there’s no reason to treat the conspiracy theory as credible.
Saying 0% would be unrealistic because there’s always a chance, but if you actually believe that this is a 50/50 toss-up, you’re just delusional and desperate to feel some sense of enlightenment like every other conspiracy theories moron in the world.
Given that there is precisely zero evidence of what you are claiming, I’ll estimate as close to zero as I can without pretending it’s impossible.
But make no mistake, you are deliberately spreading disinformation.
I’m not claiming anything. It’s just really, really early after the event.
My choice of words was not ideal, and I apologize for that.
I’m just saying being unsure of what happened isn’t crazy so soon after the event.
You’re out here saying what is and is not likely based on your own feelings about what you feel is true.
It’s simply too early to say anything definitive about what level of conspiracy existed (in the traditional sense, of more than one person, conspiring).
I am not saying this was staged. I’m saying you’re jumping the gun, to say so confidently it wasn’t.
Q-Anon level thinking that somehow Trump is a mastermind of this. The dude who can’t hide stolen files properly, can’t lie on his taxes properly, and loses money on a casino, somehow has the ability to rig a false flag assassination attempt.
Are NeoLibs that so far into the Kool-Aid that Dipshit Trump is also a grandmaster 5D chess player of this, while not being able to string words together? It’s not like he’s even been a good actor.
It’s fun to indulge in, and it doesn’t change the fact that shit is about to hit the fan, regardless of whether the shooter was someone with a legitimate desire or a paid gunman. Trump was just given and used a golden ticket to both rally republicans to vote for him, and to incite his diehard followers into another insurrection.
Sure, but I don’t think being an ironic conspiracy theorist on the levels of Q-Anon is going to make anyone seem better.
Trump was already going to do that. Trump would do it if someone sneezed on him. They already considered him a martyr. They already wanted/have an Enabling Act. The only thing this changes is a bit less blood in him, and 3 people died. Trump already had higher polling numbers.
It won’t make anyone here seem better, I agree. But at the same time, it’s not like we’re going to have the opportunity to joke around like this after the inevitable happens.
You are comparing faking an assassination attempt, which has been done before in history already, vs a bunch of idiots believing JFK is going to revive in the middle of the street just because.
You must be a republican bot trying to divert that possibility or something, it’s wild if you’re an actual person with this 0 creativity in mind
Faking an assassination attempt doesn’t take more than 2 braincells to pull, and he most likely didn’t come up with the idea himself either.
You have to be a bot to believe no human being or person in power has pulled dumb shows like these to fake an illusion of strength, it’s incredible how gullible you are
"All right ear me big sniper guy, it’s going to be an attempted assassination, the biggest ever, you are going to shoot me close, like danger close but don’t worry I’m the best president, really I’m the best and you are the best sniper, the best sniper in the whole country. So you shoot me near the ear, near enough that blood comes out, I know scary stuff, but we are tough guys, the toughest so you do it and I resist and together we make the best attempted staged assassination ever"
“blue maga” implies that there is a cult of personality around Biden like there is around Trump. That is simple not what anyone opposed to Trump believes in or rallies around.
You mean the primarys for this election that Biden is the sitting president? Or primarys four years ago when he was the guy pushed immediately to the top before the primarys?
Are you really comparing this being possibly staged, which is very easy to do and many other presidents around the world have done it before already to “show strength”, as an equal to a bunch of maggots who believed JFK was going to revive in the middle of the street? What?
You are mocking democrats for believing a conspiracy theory that says this shooting was most likely staged.
You are putting that conspiracy theory on the same level as any Qanon theory, like the one where people believed JFK was going to resurrect in the middle of the street for no reason at all.
How the hell do those two even compare in your world?
How? What did you mean then, by democrats falling for “stupid conspiracy theories”? Which theories? And how are they more stupid than being antivax, anti face mask, believing the earth is flat, believing JFK will resurrect and go to the place to camp for hours waiting for it, the whole elites drinking adrenochrome dumbshit and such?
Elections were meant to be bloodless revolutions. Unfortunately with First Past The Post voting, the right options were not available to vote for. But we can change how we vote. We can make peaceful revolution possible with a more representative electoral system.
What’s worse is that the MAGA crowd has Trump and some other figures intentionally playing conspiracies up and adding weight to them. The guys on the left don’t even have the excuse of Biden and company bullshitting.
But why would you even think that people on the left are different from people on the right? This is why I’m not into politics myself. Because it all builds on some fake idea that one side is right about everything, even good people, while the other is wrong about everything, and probably are bad people as well.
In reality, both sides are very similar and have much more incommon with eachother than they have with the politicians they are trying to support.
My understanding is that on average there are differences in psychology between conservative and progressive people. For example, conservative people tend to be okay with unfairness, since from their point of view society is a hierarchy and of course the people at the top are better off.
Anyway, given that conservative and progressive people have a different vision of an ideal society and also different ideas about how to get there, it is reasonable to expect them at act differently. We know that most politically motivated violence is from the right.
I’m sure conservatives have the same views on the other side, something negative, based in fear. If you think about it, all of politics is fear of change in a direction we don’t want, but others do.
In a family when this happens, family members talk about it and try to understand eachother. At least in a good family. In a dysfunctional one, family members go to war with eachother. And that’s what I see in politics. There is no feeling of being humans on a ball together at all.
I’m sorry, but a 10% drop isn’t a “plummet.” That’s a dip. Sure, it’s a big dip; but when prices have gone up 300% in 15 years and roughly 10% every year in general the last 2 decades, this is just a down year.
You’ve got to assume that Twitter can revoke any users access at any time for any reason under its existing terms and conditions. This is a predictable douche move by Musk but the original account holder very likely has zero recourse.
The article quotes the TOS that gives only one reason why a person might lose their twiX handle, and it’s not “Elon Musk wants it”, so there’s probably going to be a line of lawyers wanting to take this case.
They should have at least offered to give him the twitter handle. haha
TOS aren’t legally bindingTOS aren’t always legally binding, and they’re a private company, appropriating an account stored on their private servers for their own service only. There’s no legal standing There’s probably no legal standing to do anything about this. It’s just shitty and immature, not illegal.
(Technically, the TOS even says they can take accounts for trademark violations, and since Meta owns the trademark on the use of ‘X’, clearly they’re just taking it so they can give it to Meta and help them enforce their trademark.)
Source on them not being legally binding? They have a mixed track record but I’ve never seen anyone flat out say they aren’t legally binding. Sometimes they are; sometimes they are not.
I am no lawyer, but I’m pretty sure that something pre-dating the trademark is grandfathered in. Hence why Steam uses steampowered.com and not steam.com
Utility bills aren't binding because they're subsidized. They're binding because they are contracts, and contract law is a thing that exists.
It's a complicated thing and there are many restrictions and conditions on what makes a valid contract and what kinds of things are and aren't allowed. Many Terms of Service violate contract law and thus wind up not being enforceable, but it is absolutely not correct to say that Terms of Service are in general not binding.
Looks like they’re binding if they follow very specific criteria; I don’t know if TwitterX’s qualify, but I’ll accept that my above statement is probably wrong.
That said, they do have a carveout for trademark violations which technically this is, because X is trademarked, just not by Twitter.
It’s also specifically about a trade. If I had a vitamin company called X and a vacuum cleaner company called steam, neither of those companies could legally have anything to say about it.
He thinks that lawsuits are great publicity. Plus he apparently has some sort of psychological defiance disorder, so he would love to say “oh yeah? Make me!”
Microsoft and Meta both own trademarks on the letter X. Trademarks are always context-sensitive, meaning multiple entities can trademark the same sequence of letters in different contexts.
TOS aren’t legally binding only when they are not compliant with existing laws! For example when a hotel says in it’s TOS “we can murder you in your sleep” that is not binding, but when they say “we can expell you for wearing a pink polo shirt” that is legally binding
I had a landlord who had a really hard time understanding that state law specified what was legal for them to put in a rental contract, and that if someone signed a contract with illegal provisions, they were not bound to follow it.
Your first sentence is so unbelievably and obviously wrong that you there’s no way we should trust any of your other thoughts on the matter. You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.
You know, everyone should start calling the service twiX, just to irritate the candy bar company, which is actually a multi-billion dollar conglomerate that does care how its brands are perceived.
But, as I mentioned above, Twix the candy bar and TwiX the portmanteau for Twitter/X exist in different product spaces. Consumers are unlikely to be confused between the two. I still wouldn’t mind it catching on, haha.
I used to like Twix bars until I saw the kind of shit they are saying on their online platform. They are kinda all over the place, but I think it’s because the people at Twix know their racism is bad for business so try to hide it a little.
They don’t even allow me to delete my account. They suspended me (never posted anything) and now I’d need to beg to be unbanned, just to get off Mr. Elons wild ride. I’m in the EU so I’m thinking about making use of my right to be forgotten.
Which makes his desire to have x be the everything app so much more horrifying. That level of consolidated power is horrifying on its own, and it’s even more horrifying knowing the person running it enjoys abusing his power.
Whether or not they can sue, I think the point is everyone knows that one could sell a one letter Twitter account for tens of thousands (or, could have 2 years ago, anyway). So, just that Musk is a gigantic dickhead.
I wonder how much we’re going to hear about the poor person who got shot in the head right behind him, or if they’re just incidental margin notes in history, overshadowed by the big WWE media theater that is Trump. Reports are saying at least two crowd members have died.
edit: the family of the victim has given an update that Trump hasn’t even attempted to reach out to them. And also, the guy was an avid nutcase, nazi and racist. The world won’t be worse-off, we can sleep easy.
Oh Trump will absolutely bring them up at every single rally to froth up the crowd. Because he may be the martyr they care about the most, but the martyrs who actually died will be great ammunition (I can’t think of a more appropriate word, sorry) to rile up the crowd.
That is assuming there is another rally, and today’s incident wasn’t just the catalyst for a Jan 6 sequel. Knowing his supporters, I’m not holding my breath, unfortunately.
Considering the number of people here claiming this was Trump staging a false flag, I am absolutely certain there are a similarly large number of people on the right saying this was Biden trying to assassinate Trump and something must be done. So I hope not.
Unfortunately, the number is likely going to be a lot higher.
I’m pretty sure a lot of the people here are (or at least me) are being joking/sarcastic about the false flag conspiracy. For us Lemmings, there’s no emotional stake in these events, whereas his supporters will be angered over anyone even attempting to kill their fascist idol…
I’m pretty sure a lot of the people here are (or at least me) are being joking/sarcastic about the false flag conspiracy.
I’m not sure of that at all, especially when emotions are running high.
I’m not absolutely discounting the possibility they they somehow found some schlub to die in a fake assassination attempt, but I’m also not going to come up with conspiracy theories until there’s been some time to go over evidence and analyze the situation.
I’m also not going to come up with conspiracy theories until there’s been some time to go over evidence and analyze the situation.
Respect for that. It’s a reasonable and rational response to today’s series of events, despite the temptations of role-playing as a conspiracy theorist to escape from having to think about the hypothetical consequences of said events.
Republicans have blamed Joe Biden for the attempted assassination tonight, accusing the president of whipping up opposition to Donald Trump.
JD Vance, who is one of the frontrunners to be Trump’s running mate, said: “Today is not just some isolated incident. The central premise of the Biden campaign is that President Donald Trump is an authoritarian fascist who must be stopped at all costs.”
“That rhetoric led directly to President Trump’s attempted assassination,” he added.
Mike Collins, a Republican congressman from Georgia, said: “The Republican District Attorney in Butler County, PA, should immediately file charges against Joseph R. Biden for inciting an assassination.”
All I’m hearing is that they think Biden told the truth and used the power the Heritage Foundation SCOTUS explicitly gave him, and now they’re inexplicably butthurt about it.
For me the most impactful sentence here is the acknowledgement that the war on drugs failed. This is obvious to a lot of us, but to politicians to say this, could mean they are actually not tangled up with the drug lords. Cheers for Switzerland, hope the legal marijuana trials triumph with positive outcomes.
Nope, here in Brazil they love to copycat the US where it fails the most, like education, healthcare, prison system and war on drugs. Sadly the whole south america follows this path at some degree.
The war on drugs was widely successful when you start considering that it was never meant to combat drugs. It was a political maneuver to divide the populace.
Attacking food supply is despicable or even terrorism and a crime against humanity. Especially in times of climate crisis and climate refugees. They should throw those responsible in jail.
Yeah but it still could affect the global price of food. Which is enough that people might go undernourished or starve in some other country. Probably not in this case over “only” 160 tonnes, but it’s still despicable.
Yeah, no. The grain was going to Latvia. They shouldn’t have dumped it, they’re basically vandals. Let’s not act as if this will start some huge famine. All this is, is a shitty protest, possibly with russian backing. Nothing more.
We live in a global economy. If Lativia doesn’t get this grain then they’ll buy / outbid other grain that might have been destined for a poorer country. For any commodities like grain any impact in one place does have a worldwide impact through changing prices.
Due to budgetary constraints we have had to stop the drilling of the “soon-to-be-bottomless” hole, would we do still have to install a mechanism comprising of rotating knives and spikes that shoot out of the walls and floor, will that work?
telegraph.co.uk
Top