Hobo

Why would you need to defend yourself for ordering a pizza and being shocked by the high price? Sometimes I think I've gotten too old for the internet. People should be allowed to order a pizza every once in a while and not have to formulate a 5 point list of the reasons why it's okay for them to order pizza.

It's escapism I think. At least that's part of it. Having a machine that won't judge you, will serve as a perfect echo chamber, and will immediately tell you AN answer can be very appealing to some. I don't have any data, or any study to back it up, just my experience from seeing it happen.

I have a friend who I feel like I kind of lost to chatgpt. I think he's a bit unhappy with where he is in life. He got the good paying job, the house in the suburbs, wife, and 2.5 kids, but didn't ever think about what was next. Now he's just a bit lost I think, and somehow convinced himself that people weren't as good as chatting with a bot.

It's weird now. He spends long nights and weekends talking to a machine. He's constructed elaborate fictional worlds within his chatgpt history. I've grown increasingly concerned about him, and his wife clearly is struggling with it. He's obviously depressed but instead of seeking help or attempting to figure himself out, he turned to a non-feeling, non-judgmental, emotionless tool for answers.

It's a struggle to talk to him now. It's like talking to a cryptobro at peak btc mania. The only thing that he wants to talk about is LLMs. Trying to bring up that maybe spending all your time talking to a machine is a bit unhealthy invokes his ire and he'll avoid you for several days. Like a herion addict struggling with addiction, even pointing out the obvious flaws in what he's doing makes him distance himself more from you.

I'm not young, not old exactly either, but I've known him for 25 years in my adult life. We met in college and have been friends ever since. I know many won't quite understand but knowing someone that long, and remaining close, talk every few days, friends is quite rare. At this point he is my longest held friendship and I feel like I'm losing him to a robot. I've lost other friends to addiction in my life and to say that it's been similar is under stating it. I don't know what to do for him. I don't know if there's really anything I CAN do for him. How do you help someone that doesn't even think they have a problem?

I guess my point is, if you find someone who is just depressed enough, just stuck enough, with a particular proclivity towards computers/the internet then you have a perfect canidate for falling down the LLM rabbit hole. It offers them an out to feeling like they're being judged. They feel like the insanity it spits out is more sane than how they feel now. They think they're getting somewhere, or at least escaping their current situation. Escapism is very appealing when everything else seems pointless and sort of gray I think. So that's at least one type of person that can fall down the chapgpt/LLM rabbit hole. I'm sure there's others out there too with there own unique motivations and reason's for latching onto LLMs.

Dear lord 2015/2016 was like the sharp decline after a long slope downward in my opinion. Might be showing my age but peak reddit to me was prior to reddit gold and vote fuzzing.

To where? Like where you gonna go that is more suitable than where we already are? You gonna rocketship your ass to Mars? Cause even with global warming earth is still more hospitable than a rocky desert with no oxygen. A bigass bank account with lots of zeros isn't gonna keep anyone out of the we're collectively fucked line. Sure it might get you a spot at the back of the line, but we're all getting in it together no matter who you are.

Did you censor the word "bitch" or is this some sort of fucking idiot censorship on lemmy.world? Fucking swear I'll leave this instance at a drop of a hat if it is dumbass censorship. (Edit: It's shitty ass lemmy.ml that's censoring it, which is the above users home instance.)

Words don't need to be blanket censored on the internet. Go ham with moderation but censoring words is how we end up with weird phrases like "unalive" instead of what they actually are murder, suicide, and death. Which makes it fucking hard to talk about fucking real god damn mother fucking problems people are dealing with you corporate bitch ass shills.

Yes but it's been quite a while since it was. Now it's a heinous cash grab that puts young people, that don't understand basic finance, into lifelong debt. Long ago a tool like this would've probably been adopted by academia as a tool you need to learn to leverage on order to get to a better, more thorough, understanding of a subject. We've capitalismed education and it's hurting everyone.

For a real answer here's the Zscaler blog write up: https://www.zscaler.com/blogs/security-research/technical-analysis-anatsa-campaigns-android-banking-malware-active-google

It looks like they are doing it after app install with a malicious patch. This patch asks for SMS and accessibility access to gain privileges necessary to get into the banking apps. I haven't thoroughly read it but just looking at the attack chain that's what I gleaned.

I swear it's going to be a generational change where it takes a slow adoption by the younger network people as the older network people slowly retire. Kind of like how racism and sexism has diminished. It wasn't like we changed anyone's mind, just that people held onto it until they died and younger people just said, "The future is now, old man." and moved past it.

This excludes all the ipv4 ips that have a 0 in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th octets. Sorry but we're going to have to revoke your Network Engineering credentials.

I'd have hired you. At least I know you'd be honest and not try to hide shit for fear of embarrassment.

I swear no one in this whole ass thread remembers John Candy or Chris Farley. There were plenty of fat dudes and dudettes back in the 80s and 90s. Yes Americans are getting fatter, but it's not nearly as profound as everyone is making it out to be. Trust me there were tons of fat motherfuckers running around back then too.

Sincerely a fat motherfucker.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/955031/adult-body-weight-average-us/

The source is mass (internet) hysteria from 5 or 6 years ago. The above poster's claim is false and just silly given the slightest amount of scrutiny.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/taco-bell-grade-d-meat/

https://www.mashed.com/110654/truth-taco-bells-seasoned-beef/

Where are you getting that well regulated means well armed? It meant, and still means, trained, able to take orders, and battlefield ready. Where do you think the term "regulars" comes from in the context of historical warfare and what do you think that term means?

Did you throughly misunderstand collective rights theory or something? Could you possibly point me to the interpretation where it claims "well regulated" means "well armed" in the context of the 2nd amendment? I certainly couldn't find any sources to back that claim and it seems like you might have pulled it out of your backside.

I don't disagree with your point, but the flipper zero for sure lowers the bar of entry. Before the flipper came out the, "You must be this tall to ride" required some pretty good knowledge of microcontrollers, hardware peripherals, and software engineering. The people that had that sort of knowledge tended to actually have paying jobs, which is like the biggest factor in not being a street criminal.

The flipper made the barrier of entry at about the level of being able to operate a TV remote which any dipshit can do. However, the fact that the flipper exists at all means that the cat is out of the bag. As you said, someone else is just going to come along and release a similar product. You can't just ban the flipper and expect it to have any impact. My concern is they will decided to make certain code illegal, which gets really stupid.

I imagine you sitting there like Scotty, "Give me an ip address, not no colon, not no hexadecimal, and not no bloody double colon. Just 4 numbers between 0 and 255 with a dot in between."

I always preferred the Mark Twain quote, "Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." Because I've been beaten bloody with that experience on more than one occasion.

"The cradle of our democracy" refers to Washington DC in particular which is directly governed by the House/Senate. It also consistently ranks as one of the top cities in crime in the US by almost any metric (although ranking crime by city gets murky). Additionally it is notoriously poorly governed and has some really strange local laws that are almost entirely nationally political in origin. It also doesn't really help that the people living in D.C. get a diminished political voice by default.

I don't know if there's really grander conclusions to make other than having people govern a city that have no vested interest in the locals, with their actual constituents possibly 1000s of miles away, is a terrible idea. As for what it says about our government as a whole, I really think it's a better case for MORE democracy for the locals in D.C. rather than an indictment of the idea...

To read about D.C. and how it is governed: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.

Basic crime stats for D.C.: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C.

I think that's also made up propaganda. Kitty litter is used by janitorial staff basically everywhere (at least in the US) to clean up vomit and other semi-wet solids. Children are prolific pukers so it's not surprising that basically every school has a bunch of kitty litter in their janitorial closets.

Basic system and web security might not seem important now, but let me tell you, if you adopt good cyber security practices early it will help you create a much more secure environment...

What're you guys doing with those rocks?

Poor Keanu Reaves gave up his childhood memories in Johnny Mnemonic to store something like 100GB of data in his brain. I don't remember the Star Trek storage callout cause they were generally pretty good about just fabricating their own units for stuff (future sci-fi writers should take note, it's always easier to make up units then deal with pedantic people on the internet).

We can debate what it means effectively, but the term organic in the US means something. It's a regulated term and you can't just slap different stickers on something and call it organic. So much just straight up misinformation in this thread from people too jaded, or too lazy, to look it up.

https://www.usda.gov/topics/organic

https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic

Now I'm not saying that the regulated term "organic" doesn't have some other weird side effects, or that people haven't attempted to hoodwink the process, but the term itself carries the weight of regulation in the US. So it's not some silly, "Hurrr derrr Organic means Organic" thing like people are making it out to be.

First line of Bilbo Baggins's birthday speech.

Misunderstood STIG from the sound of it. The STIG is only applicable to unprivileged users but tends to get applied to all workstations regardless of user privileges. Also I think the .mil STIG GPOs apply it to all workstations regardless of privileges.

The other thing that tends to get overlooked is that AC-12 let's you set it to whatever the heck you want. Ao you could theoretically set it to 99999 year by policy if you wanted.

https://www.stigviewer.com/stig/application_security_and_development/2017-01-09/finding/V-69243

Does the user have a gpo that enables the setting? That's what it sounds like to me considering:

I haven’t been able to replicate the behavior on other PCs, but a number of X users replied to my post about this saying they have experienced the same thing in the past.

I'm also not clear if they are saying when they checked the setting was disabled, or if they're saying it was enabled and they don't recall setting it.

Of the 100s (possibly 1000s) of complaints I have about Windows, and Microsoft in general, some dude whose not sure how Edge imported settings is pretty far down on my list. Especially when the claim doesn't come with a before after screenshot, or the ability to reproduce it.

I think there's subtleties that you're ignoring to push an agenda. I do think it's important to understand the question on the table though. The question isn't what rights you have, but when is the government allowed to take away those rights.

Maybe we should take a step back. Do you think the government can revoke a person's 2nd amendment rights? For example do prisoners have the right have a shiv in their cell? The question posed in this instance is whether or not a restraining order for domestic assault rises to the level of due process for taking away that right. It's already firmly written into law that the government can leverage due process to take away rights. Unless you're arguing that it is an absolute right, and we should all be allowed to have nuclear bombs and prisoners should be allowed to have shivs, then I think you're missing the point.

You also seem to have a very tenuous definition of the 2nd amendment that you're willing to change when it doesn't fit your needs. It seems like you might want to think it through a bit more, and perhaps try to get at the root of the question at hand, instead of spouting that everyone should be allowed to have arms no matter what. The implication of that statement is a bit terrifying, and is well outside of our current legal adjudication of the 2nd amendment.

https://xkcd.com/1138/

Also, again, there are absolutely editors who will just wordlessly revert objective, factual edits, with clear, proper citations from accepted primary sources...

That might be the misunderstanding. Primary sources are not directly allowed on wikipedia without very careful consideration that no analysis was done. Wikipedia article are, and should be, mostly derived from secondary sources to avoid bias. The Wikipedia page does a pretty good job of describing the guideline:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

The "Pink Acid trip..." was pretty spot on, but that sounds like a pretty good time to me. I had a blast and thought it was spectacular. 10 our of 10 would take acid and get slapped by confusingly attractive people again!

The natural world tries to kill you all the time. Why are you trusting that!?! Seriously though, both of these arguements are somewhat fallacious. Saying that GMOs are safe because, "It happens all the time in nature." Is the same fallacy that it isn't safe because, "It isn't natural to accelerate the process with genetic modification." Both are just mental shortcuts for people so they don't have to think about the insanely complex topic of GMOs, the effects, and what the right path forward is for all of us.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

Why reach for a fictional example when so many real world examples exist? Just curious because I think of Bezos, Musk, and to a lesser degree Gates as examples of smart people doing bad things. I mean there's several very smart people that have done good things as well but those are harder to come by. Even people like Alfred Nobel created something he thought would save the lives of miners only for his invention to be used for war. Einstein also did a lot for the advancement of theoretical physics and his work was subsequently used as the foundation of the atomic bomb. It's actually way harder to come up with a Tony Stark type smart "good guy" in the real world for me because reality is often far more grey.

Federal courts in the decade since have found many restrictions on the right to own and use weapons perfectly congruent with that decision. Heller merely says the government can't enforce laws that prevent (most) Americans from possessing commonly used weapons in their homes for self-defense.

From the introductory paragraph in your own link. Again this isn't whether most Americans can posses weapons but does a domestic abuse restraining order rise to the level of due process. Which oddly falls in line with the second paragraph of the source you linked:

Courts have found that Heller does not preclude laws that prohibit anyone younger than 21 from buying guns in retail stores; laws that bar people who committed a single nonviolent felony from ever owning a gun; laws that severely restrict the ability to carry a gun outside the home; laws that ban commonly owned magazines of a certain capacity; or laws that require handguns to incorporate untested, expensive, and unreliable "microstamping" technology.

There's nothing I found in the article you linked which claims that the 2nd amendment is an absolute right that cannot be revoked. You're arguing something that simply isn't a thing and avoiding the actual question at hand.

That's more than a bit of a reductionist view of Buffalo Bill. I think there might be a considerable amount of nuance that you're ignoring about him that you could glean from just reading his wiki[1]. Not saying he's a beacon of morality and ethics, but he wasn't just a racist with a stage show either.

[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_Bill

Dude looks like he passed out way too early at a frat party hosted by the Klan.

What're you talking about? The study linked has 43 references and has been cited 140 times. It even has their method and approach pretty clearly stated right at the start of the paper where they outline where they gathered their data from. Did you click the wrong link or something?

I recommend googling his face, but it is very hard to tell the difference between the two.

Here now you can pretend to be born in the mid to late 80s instead:

https://youtu.be/wvAnQqVJ3XQ?si=j2IDH3d8ntQ22u8P

Like basically every school in the US has a dress code already. Don't get this twisted into something else, this is purely performative nonsense by some backwoods inbred redneck.

It's literally not that simple, and at this point you're not even reading what I'm saying. What you are claiming is not black and white even by your own sources. It speaks volumes about how much thought you've actually put into the subject. You're far worse than the far left anti-2nd amendment folks in a lot of ways, and have roughly the same understanding of the subject as they do about it.

I hope one day you'll learn nuance. Good day to you.

So this is the link in question:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263585668_Men_Are_More_Likely_than_Women_to_Slow_in_the_Marathon

And you don't see a research paper with citations?

Here's a screenshot of the end of the paper that displays the links to the citations and references:

Here's the full abstract as well just for further clarification:

Unlabelled: Studies on nonelite distance runners suggest that men are more likely than women to slow their pace in a marathon. Purpose: This study determined the reliability of the sex difference in pacing across many marathons and after adjusting women's performances by 12% to address men's greater maximal oxygen uptake and also incorporating information on racing experience. Methods: Data were acquired from 14 US marathons in 2011 and encompassed 91,929 performances. For 2929 runners, we obtained experience data from a race-aggregating Web site. We operationalized pace maintenance as the percentage change in pace observed in the second half of the marathon relative to the first half. Pace maintenance was analyzed as a continuous variable and as two categorical variables, as follows: "maintain the pace," defined as slowing <10%, and "marked slowing," defined as slowing ≥30%. Results: The mean change in pace was 15.6% and 11.7% for men and women, respectively (P < 0.0001). This sex difference was significant for all 14 marathons. The odds for women were 1.46 (95% confidence interval, 1.41-1.50; P < 0.0001) times higher than men to maintain the pace and 0.36 (95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.38; P < 0.0001) times that of men to exhibit marked slowing. Slower finishing times were associated with greater slowing, especially in men (interaction, P < 0.0001). However, the sex difference in pacing occurred across age and finishing time groups. Making the 12% adjustment to women's performances lessened the magnitude of the sex difference in pacing but not its occurrence. Although greater experience was associated with less slowing, controlling for the experience variables did not eliminate the sex difference in pacing. Conclusions: The sex difference in pacing is robust. It may reflect sex differences in physiology, decision making, or both.

You got a quarter?