Betteridge’s Law holding firm

Something to do with AI probably

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=what+is+grok

My clue is the mystery projectile that flies off to the left for absolutely no reason and leaving no trace of its origin

Grok.

Dude it took me 9 lifespans to finally realize that’s “ne’er-do-wells”

One of the features of using your own soap! Dilute more if your hands are getting too dry – I like 1:5 dilution for my foaming hand soap pumps, that’s been working well for me. This will change depending on how long you wash your hands for; I use a whole 10-15s even at home so I reduced the concentration. I’m not sure what the “minimum” concentration is for it to be effective, but I just tweaked it so my hands don’t feel oily. If you need it to be highly dilute for sensitive skin, you could consider keeping a very light solution for frequent washing and a separate stronger concentration for more dirty hands.

I started using (diluted) castile for everything including handwashing, I’ve been liking it.

I think it’ll be similar to Nixon. They were similar people, anyway.

I’m exclusively a savescum gambler

Here’s a fun podcast covering that book!

If Books Could Kill: Steve Harvey’s “Act Like A Lady, Think Like A Man”

My favorite thing about this is the explainxkcd page keeps it going by also spelling out all punctuation

I feel like kids are the primary loss-sufferers here :(

(phrasing there is me trying not to call them losers)

Weird number of downvotes here – I thought they were meant for low-effort or non contributive comments, not an “I disagree” button. This person is giving a unique perspective as a subscriber (in this thread, anyway) and should be met with curiosity, I think. It is helpful to know that there are people who enjoy paying for it, so thanks for giving your opinion here.

I disagree because they have a dominant position for reasons other than having a good product – they squash competition trying to make the space better while themselves actively making it worse. Subscribing means supporting that style of inhibiting innovation, not to mention the other user-hostile practices they embrace (extend, extinguish). They are an ad company and obligated to make a profit, I get that, but I refuse to abide this style of using investor money to operate at a loss for years while deceptively capturing the market before raising prices. If your product is good, it shouldn’t need to be artificially propped up.

Yeah I feel you. I don’t think the content is necessarily bad, but LLM output posing as a factual post at a bare, bare minimum needs to also include the sources that the bot used to synthesize its response. And, ideally, a statement from the poster that they checked and verified against all of them. As it is now, no one except the author has any means of checking any of that; it could be entirely made up, and very likely is misleading. All I can say is it sounds good, I guess, but a vastly more helpful response would have been a simple link to a reputable source article.

You have yet to suggest or confirm otherwise, so my point stands that your original post is unhelpful and non-contributive

The issue is you didn’t confirm anything the text prediction machine told you before posting it as a confirmation of someone else’s point, and then slid into a victimized, self-righteous position when pushed back upon. One of the worst things about how we treat LLMs is comparing their output to humans – they are not, figuratively or literally, the culmination of all human knowledge, and the only fault they have comparable to humans is a lack of checking the validity of its answers. In order to use an LLM responsibly, you have to already know the answer to what you’re requesting a response to and be able to fact-check it. If you don’t do that, then the way you use it is wrong. It’s good for programming where correctness is a small set of rules, or discovering patterns where we are limited, but don’t treat it like a source of knowledge when it constantly crosses its wires.

Gattacum

Thanks for taking the time to explain :)

If the ACAB post is just words, then no. If it’s imagery of people being beaten by cops, then yes. There’s no need to argue extremes to make the point seem ridiculous – just use judgment and be kind.

It’s about being considerate; that’s where the conversation starts and ends, so don’t get sidetracked or focus on semantics. It does not matter why someone is browsing any website at their place of work, so let’s not even bring that into the conversation. NFSW is meant to help people view content at work/in public by making it avoidable. It’s a communication from the author/community to the audience that the content may or may not be inappropriate – that’s it. If it’s debatable and isn’t tagged, that’s inconsiderate and a request to tag it should be treated with consideration and kindness (barring trolls, which OP clearly isn’t).

But that’s just my opinion, and I acknowledge yours is different.

Just because there’s no nudity doesn’t mean it’s safe-for-work. This would absolutely make my female colleagues uncomfortable and that falls under the spirit of NSFW. Getting pedantic about what is or isn’t pornographic or nudity to justify having gross pictures up on your screen is entirely beside the point – if there’s any reason it could contribute to a less equitable workplace, it should be labeled NSFW. If there’s any debate about it at all, it’s the considerate thing to do.