Lvxferre

If you're talking about strips that look like this:

I believe that most brands use Benedict's reagent: copper sulphate, sodium citrate, sodium carbonate. It interacts with reducing sugars (like glucose) and the colour goes from blue to light green to green to brown-green to brown-red, depending on concentration.

The only time that I remember dreaming with my phone, I was trying to turn it off, while its real life counterpart rung furiously.

I've dreamt some times with my desktop though. Such as:

• my cat pulling out the mouse from my computer, sitting in its place on the mousepad, and then meowing loudly (she does this a lot when she's play-hunting)
• throwing potatoes on the screen, so I could get some French fries in return
• keyboard gardening: the keys were subbed with small pots full of dirt, some with small versions of plants. A lot of them were pepper plants and I was trying to cross-breed them.

Shinji, from Evangelion.

He's 14. His mum is dead. His dad is a piece of shit and a manipulative bastard, who sees him as nothing but a pawn. "Emotionally traumatised" doesn't even start to describe him. He's pressured to pilot a mecha and if he fucks things up people will die, he knows that they will die, and that it'll be his fault.

And yet people expect him to be assertive or to not have meltdowns? Come the fucking on.

I'm almost 40. More than a decade ago I used to live on my own, then decided to move back with my mum. It was better for both - splitting expenses, keeping her company, splitting tasks, so goes on.

Kind of. I live with my mother so the house expenses are shared - sometimes I'm short on money and she covers it for me, sometimes it's the opposite.

Sometimes either of us cover my sister's financial arse too, even if she doesn't live with us.

I thought about this a while ago. My conclusion was that the simplest way to handle this would be to copy multireddits, and expand upon them.

Here's how I see it working.

Users can create multireddits multicommunities multis as they want. What goes within a multi is up to the user; for example if you want to create a "myfavs" multi with !potatoism, !illegallysmolcats and !anime_art, you do you.

The multi owner can:

1. edit it - change name, add/remove comms to/from the multi
2. make the multi public or private
3. use the multi as their feed, instead of Subscribed/Local/All
4. use the multi to bulk subscribe, unsub, or block comms

By default a multi would be private, and available only for the user creating it. However, you can make it public if you want; this would create a link for that multi, available for everyone checking your profile. (Or you could share it directly.)

You can use someone else's public multi as your feed or to bulk subscribe/unsub/block comms. You can also "fork" = copy it; that would create an identical multi associated with your profile, that then you can edit.

This screams FAITH (Filthy Assumptions Instead of THinking) from a distance, on multiple levels:

1. Assuming that the current machine learning development will lead to artificial general intelligence. Will it?
2. Assuming that said AGI would appear in time to reduce power consumption. Will it?
3. Assuming that lowering the future power consumption will be enough to address issues caused by the current power consumption. Will it?
4. Assuming that addressing issues from a distant future means that the whole process won't cause harm for people in a nearer future. Will it?

Furthermore, Gates in the quote is being disingenuous:

"Let's not go overboard on this," he said. "Datacenters are, in the most extreme case, a 6 percent addition [to the energy load] but probably only 2 to 2.5 percent. The question is, will AI accelerate a more than 6 percent reduction? And the answer is: certainly," Gates said.

The answer addresses something far, far more specific than the main issue.

If I may, here's my alternative solution for the problem, in the same style as Gates':

Kill everyone between the North Pole and the Equator.

What do you mean, it would kill 85% people in the world? Well, you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs, right? Nobody that I know personally lives there, so Not My Problem®. (Just keep Japan, I need my anime to watch.)

...I'm being clearly sarcastic to deliver a point here - it's trivially easy to underestimate issues affecting humankind, and problems associated with their solutions, if you are not directly affected by either. Gates is some billionaire bubbled around rich people; this sort of problem will affect the poor first, as the rich can simply throw enough money into their problems to make them go away.

I know that this expression desensitises people to something serious, but it describes Microsoft - the "it"/corporation - perfectly: rapist mentality. It shows how eager Microsoft is to disregard consent, users saying "no, I don't want it", and to force itself over the users as long as it gets some benefit out of it.

Including new obnoxious advertisement slots into an already released product - one that you paid for - is only a result of that mentality.

Jet lag is the hell of a drug. And not a fun one.

More like the straw that broke the camel's back. And a sign that Microsoft's behaviour is still the same as it was in IE times.

The article is coherent (it conveys the relevant info without contradicting itself) albeit poorly written. Most likely the result of someone getting really sloppy while writing it, perhaps sleep-deprived. But it doesn't read like AI stuff, nor a translation - cue to "Cova Negra cave" (lit. "Black Cave cave").

All languages are the result of the collective brainfarts of lazy people. English is not special in this regard.

What you're noticing is two different sources of new words: making at home and borrowing it from elsewhere.

For a Germanic language like English, "making at home" often involves two things:

• compounding - pick old word, add a new root, the meaning is combined. Like "firetruck" - a "truck" to deal with "fire". You can do it recursively, and talk for example about the "firetruck tire" (the space is simply an orthographic convention). Or even the "firetruck tire rubber quality".
• affixation - you get some old word and add another non-root morpheme. Like "home" → "homeless" (no home) → "homelessness" (the state of not having a home).

The other source of vocabulary would be borrowings. Those words aren't analysable as the above because they're typically borrowed as a single chunk (there are some exceptions though).

Now, answering your question on "why": Norman conquest gave English a tendency to borrow words for "posh" concepts from Norman, then French. And in Europe in general there's also a tendency to borrow posh words from Latin and Greek.

If I were to watch Dragon Ball Z now, I'd probably drop the series. I still remember it fondly, but it's too slow.

The first two seasons of the Pokémon anime aged well for me. Individual games, too. But the series as a whole felt from an "I know all 386!" to "...it's a Tentaquil".

Chrono Trigger went from "it's okay, it's fun" to "...I spent my whole life underrating it, didn't I?" So did Final Fantasy VI.

Same deal with Dostoyevsky. I guess you need some maturity to understand things.

Baudelaire, though? Hard pass.

I still love 1984 and Animal Farm, but I want to drown 90% of the muppets talking about them.

I can't stand Legião Urbana any more. Pink Floyd on the other hand aged well, so did Nenhum de Nós.

To be honest I was never too much into movies. There's one or another thing that I like (Modern Times, 8 1/2, The Shining), but it's mostly unchanged.

Is it? [coherent]

Yes when it comes to the relevant info. The anaphoric references are all over the place; he, her, she, man*, they all refer to the same fossil.

*not quite an anaphoric reference, I know. I'm still treating it as one.

I can only really guess whether they’re talking about one or two subjects here.

It's clearly one. Dated to be six years old, of unknown sex, nicknamed "Tina".

Why does it show someone cared for the mother as well?

This does not show lack of coherence. Instead it shows the same as the "is it?" from your comment: assuming that a piece of info is clear by context, when it isn't. [This happens all the time.]

That said, my guess (I'll repeat for emphasis: this is a guess): I think that this shows that they cared for the mother because, without doing so, the child would've died way, way earlier.

That all reads like bad AI writing to me.

I genuinely don't think so.

Modern LLMs typically don't leave sentence fragments like "on the territory of modern Spain. Years ago." They're consistent with anaphoric references, even when they don't make sense in the real world. And they don't screw up with prepositions, like switching "in" with "on". All those errors are typically human.

On the other hand, LLMs fail hard on a discursive level. They don't know the topic (in this case, the fossil). At least this error is not present here.

Based on that I think that a better explanation for why this text is so poorly written is "CBA". The author couldn't be arsed to review it. Myself wrote a lot of shit like this when drunk, sleepy, or in a rush.

I'll go a step further and say that the author likely speaks more than one language, and they were copying this stuff from some site in another language that has grammatical gender. I'm saying this because it explains why the anaphoric references are all over the place.

Those mistakes would be easily solved by something that doesn’t even need to think. Just add a filter of acceptable orders, or hire a low wage human who does not give a shit about the customers special orders.

That wouldn't address the bulk of the issue, only the most egregious examples of it.

For every funny output like "I asked for 1 ice cream, it's giving me 200 burgers", there's likely tens, hundreds, thousands of outputs like "I asked for 1 ice cream, it's giving 1 burger", that sound sensible but are still the same problem.

It's simply the wrong tool for the job. Using LLMs here is like hammering screws, or screwdriving nails. LLMs are a decent tool for things that you can supervision (not the case here), or where a large amount of false positives+negatives is not a big deal (not the case here either).

Because English is half a dozen languages wrapped in a trenchcoat?

A language is not its vocabulary; that's like pretending that the critter is just its fur.

English vocabulary is from multiple sources, but that is not exactly unique or special.

The alt text is nice, too: The weird sense of duty really good sysadmins have can border on the sociopathic, but it's nice to know that it stands between the forces of darkness and your cat blog's servers.

Next on the news: "Hitler ate bread."

I'm being cheeky, but I don't genuinely think that "Nazi are using a tool that is being used by other people" is newsworthy.

Regarding the blue octopus, mentioned in the end of the text: when I criticise the concept of dogwhistle, it's this sort of shit that I'm talking about. I don't even like Thunberg; but, unless there is context justifying the association of that octopus plushy with antisemitism, it's simply a bloody toy dammit.

Probably ascending in Nethack. With a wizard orc! (Not a good combo, but I'm stubborn.) I even #chatted with Famine for shits and giggles.

They're mostly safe. Don't taunt them, don't get too close to them (specially not to veals and bulls), and eventually they'll see you as "safe to ignore".

could you say that town is homelessnessless?

Has. The word is legit, but it would be an adjective because of the last -less there, so:

• That town has homelessnessless.
• That homelessnessless town is nice.

You could convert it back into a noun, through zero derivation; for example "homeless" is an adjective too, but people can say "the homeless are hungry", as if it was a noun. But it sounds weird in this situation, I don't know why.

My orc did get hungry a few times, but on a lighter side the range of available food is larger than the other races. Kobolds? Poison resist! Tripe? Nom nom nom. That dead pet? Waste not, want not. Goblin? What's up with cannibalism, meat is meat!

I think that governments should be tackling both Edge and Chrome at the same time. One of them for underhanded tactics, another for being a monopoly. Tackling only one of them is not enough.

I also think that Microsoft's strategy is worse than just underhanded - it stinks stupidity from a distance. It's clearly backfiring - this is not the first Browser Wars any more, people nowadays have a good grasp on what a browser is supposed to be. And while some pressure might convert a few users, too much pressure is bound to create resistance, even on users that would be otherwise inclined to follow you like cattle.

This is one of those rare cases where what is being said is less interesting than who says it.

What: Reddit stock is junk, the IPO will fail hard, and anyone investing on it is begging to lose money. I believe that most people discussing this in Lemmy already know that, so the info isn't new here.

Who: Forbes. Forbes' target audience is investors; greedy vulture capitalists love it. So if Forbes says "it'll sink!", investors are less eager to buy stock, and that sinks the stonks even further. So what Forbes says is often a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I'm glad that Forbes is doing it. I want to see Reddit die.

EDIT: as other posters are correctly highlighting, I derped - the article is from a "contributor", and it has basically no impact or visibility.

Damn - now I want Forbes shitting on the IPO!

Good old honeytrap. I'm not sure, but I think that it's doable.

Have a honeytrap page somewhere in your website. Make sure that legit users won't access it. Disallow crawling the honeytrap page through robots.txt.

Then if some crawler still accesses it, you could record+ban it as you said... or you could be even nastier and let it do so. Fill the honeytrap page with poison - nonsensical text that would look like something that humans would write.

Is "creators" Youtube's version of "think on the children"?

Because we're actually biped rats?

Just kidding. Grapes have lots of tartaric acid and, accordingly to this link, tartaric acid causes kidney failure in dogs.

Then accordingly to this link only 15~20% of the tartaric acid consumed by humans is eliminated in the urine; most of it goes to the large intestine, and gets metabolised by bacteria. So I guess that, unlike dogs, we avoid the kidney failure by avoiding sending it to the kidneys.

I'm checking the Xitter page of the alleged source of the attacks, SN_Blackmeta. But what caught my attention the most was another message. And overall the account.

• Their group was formed in April 2024. It's an extremely new group.
• Their targets overall seem too "random".
• They're using Xitter dammit. Do they not care about their own security?
• Whoever wrote the English version of the text speaks Dutch or German. Probably Dutch, as their spelling corrector is "fixing" words like "beginning" into "beginnen", "witne[ssed]" to "witten[seed]", etc.
• Don't trust me on what I'm going to say as I don't speak Russian, but there's also something off with their Russian version of the text. Typically Russian doesn't use a comma after time expressions like "в этот день" (on this day); you could argue that it's there due to that parenthetical expression (7 апреля 2024 года), but even its presence feels off. Also the fact that they spelled out "года" instead of just "г.".

If I had to take some bets: the group is from Western Europe, not Russia or any country where Arabic is the dominant language. They're likely skript kiddos trying to take the "glory" of attacks conducted by someone else; if they aren't, my second guess would be that they're doing it just to call attention to themselves ("look ma! I'm a haxor!!! I'm so cool!! X-D" style).

Let's pretend for a moment that we know that Reddit has any sort of decent versioning system, and that it keeps the old versions of your comments alongside the newer ones, and that it's feeding the LLM with the old version. (Does it? I have my doubts, given that Reddit Inc. isn't exactly competent.)

Even then, I think that it's sensible to use this tool, to scorch the earth and discourage other human users from adding their own content to that platform. It still means less data for Google to say "it's a bunch of users, who cares about the intellectual property of those filthy things? Their data is now my data. Feed it to the wolves to Gemini".

In early testing of the new format, Reddit found that free-form ads outperform all other ad types in average click through rate (CTR) by 28%

Translation: users mistakenly click it 28% more, before realising that it isn't actually content

along with increased community engagement when comments are enabled.

Translation: more "fuck your ad" complains in the comments.

More importantly, I predict that the move will increase the usage of ad blockers within the site. Dressing ads as content feels like a bad idea - I feel like users interpret this as a sign of hostility, trying to "deceive" them. I'm not sure on that though, I'm half-drunk through the whole day and I don't have data to back me up.

I am not a lawyer, but:

Given the recent trend of corporations trying to force you to give up your legal rights, I strongly advise everyone here to check their local laws and see if this sort of forced arbitration is even legal where they live.

Just for the sake of example I'll translate an excerpt of the local (Brazilian) Customers' Defence Code, from 1990:

Section II. On abusive clauses.

Article 51. Contractual clauses referring to the supply of goods and services are void of full right (i.e. non-enforceable), when: [...]

subsection VII - they determine the compulsory usage of arbitration.

I bet that most people around the world have similar laws protecting them. Use them or you'll lose them.

Some scientists say CO2 removal is simply a distraction from the urgency of the climate crisis and an excuse to continue burning fossil fuels.

Bingo~

The focus of what Torvalds said is the concept of tech singularity. TL;DR "nice fiction, it doesn't make sense in a reality of finite resources". I'll move past that since most of the discussion is around cryptocurrencies.

Now, copypasting what he says about cryptocurrencies:

For the record, I also don't believe in crypto currencies (except as a great vehicle for scams - they have certainly worked very well for the "spread the word to find the next sucker holding the bag" model of Ponzi schemes). Nor do I believe in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, or the Easter bunny.

For those who understood this excerpt as "Tarvalds thinks that cryptocurrencies dant ezizt lol lmao": do everyone a favour and go back to Reddit with your blatant lack of reading comprehension. When he says that he doesn't believe in them, he's saying that he does not see them as a viable alternative to traditional currency. (He does not say why, at least not in that message.)

And for those eager to babble "ackshyually ponzi schemes work different lol lmao": you're bloody missing the point. He's highlighting that a large part of the value associated with cryptocurrencies is speculation, not its actual usage. Even cryptocurrency enthusiasts acknowledge this.

I apologise to the others - who don't fit either category of trashy people I mentioned above - for the tone. Read the comments in this very thread and you'll likely notice why of the tone.

Kakao in the near future, trying to handle Tachiyomi forks:

The reason why Google is doing this is simply PR. It is not to improve its service.

The underlying tech is likely Gemini, a large language model (LLM). LLMs handle chunks of words, not what those words convey; so they have no way to tell accurate info apart from inaccurate info, jokes, "technical truths" etc. As a result their output is often garbage.

You might manually prevent the LLM from outputting a certain piece of garbage, perhaps a thousand. But in the big picture it won't matter, because it's outputting a million different pieces of garbage, it's like trying to empty the ocean with a small bucket.

I'm not making the above up, look at the article - it's basically what Gary Marcus is saying, under different words.

And I'm almost certain that the decision makers at Google know this. However they want to compete with other tendrils of the GAFAM cancer for a turf called "generative models" (that includes tech like LLMs). And if their search gets wrecked in the process, who cares? That turf is safe anyway, as long as you can keep it up with enough PR.

Google continues to say that its AI Overview product largely outputs “high quality information” to users.

There's a three letters word that accurately describes what Google said here: lie.

I think that the "controversy" died down. Simply because there was no controversy on first place - just a conflict of interests, where you can see both sides being reasonable but ultimately wanting mutually incompatible things.

A business that relies on blackbox AI decision making, when dealing with people, cares not about being accurate or fair, and adopts technology on the fallacy / stupidity of appeal to novelty instead of analysing its overall impact.

IMO this practice should be forbidden.

Cory Doctorow, enshittification: "finally, they [platforms] abuse those business customers to claw back all the value for themselves".

That is exactly what is happening here; AI is just an excuse, not the reason.

In addition to factors already mentioned by other users, I believe that there are also social/cultural reasons for that lack of engagement.

Commenting in Reddit is like stepping on a mine field - no matter how innocuous your comments are, you're bound to have users there assuming words into your mouth to screech at you. Plus all the "ackshyually", one-upping, "wah TL;DR!" (i.e. "I'm entitled to an abridged version of what you said, even if you likely spent far more time writing your comment than I would reading it").

Eventually you say "why bother commenting? Just to get a headache?" and stop commenting altogether.

I'll focus on Latin because I don't know how much this applies to Greek, Sumerian, Sanskrit, Akkadian etc.

Lots of translators focus too much on individual words, and miss the text. So when handling Latin they

• spam less common synonyms (specially Latin borrowings)
• try to follow Latin syntax too closely into English
• use large sentences full of appositions

Less common words, fancy syntax, large sentences? That makes the text sound old timey.

I'll give you a practical example with Caesar's De Bello Gallico. Granted, the translation is from the 1800s, but even for those times it's convoluted:

[Original] Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum unam incolunt Belgae, aliam Aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum lingua Celtae, nostra Galli appellantur.

[Bohn and McDevitte] All Gaul is divided into three parts, one of which the Belgae inhabit, the Aquitani another, those who in their own language are called Celts, in our Gauls, the third.

There's almost a 1:1 word correspondence. With the following exceptions:

• "the" - because not using it in English makes the text sound broken
• "in", "of" - because English demands prepositions more frequently than Latin
• "their own" - because English lacks a 1-word equivalent for "ipsorum"

For reference here's how I'd translate the same excerpt:

Gaul is split into three parts. One is inhabited by the Belgae; another, by the Aquitani; the third one, by those who call themselves "Celts", and that we call "Gauls".

I'm not a good translator, mind you. And I'm myself fairly pedantic. Even then, I believe that it delivers the point better - it's streamlined, using concise and clear language, like a military commentary written by a general is supposed to be. But it is not a 1:1 like those guys obsess over.