deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Yeah, I wish they’d made the second graph show percentage point difference instead of percentage growth.

Do you seriously need someone to explain the difference, or are you just being contrary for its own sake?

There’s a disturbing number of creeps ITT arguing that they should be allowed to film people without their knowledge on the subway

One quirk of github copilot is that because it lets you choose which model to send a question to, you can gaslight Opus into apologising for something that gpt-4o told you.

I recently had an interaction where it made a really weird comment about a function that didn’t make sense, and when I asked it to explain what it meant, it said “let me have another look at the code to see what I meant”, and made up something even more nonsensical.

It’s clear why it happened as well; when I asked it to explain itself, it had no access to its state of mind when it made the original statement; it has no memory of its own beyond the text the middleware feeds it each time. It was essentially being asked to explain what someone who wrote what it wrote, might have been thinking.

They always remind me of this guy on account of the unfortunate subtext

weirdest use of that meme format to date

also the irony of 145 IQ man tripping over his own grammar

One huge problem is that most people on Facebook neither know nor care what sinister things Meta are doing to them. Everyone thinks they’re immune to propaganda, and most people don’t understand the true extent with which they’re being tracked or what’s being done with that data.

Technically should be 3.14.2, or even 3.14.16. On account of how quoting something to a limited number of significant figures works.

deleted by creator

Sorry, I’m still stuck on what the limiting aspect of it is. “Operating on hundreds of pages that each have limited reach” costs next to nothing if it’s all automated with bots.

Either I’ve not understood your point, or you’re suggesting that spammers would limit themselves to one instance?

Spam is about volume, and a 0.1% takeup rate would be a dream for a spammer.

This makes me wonder if my husband might have adhd qualities.

It took him five years to sign up for driving lessons that he wanted to take, and the reason he gave for taking so long is that I apparently kept putting him off by asking him when was he going to sign up for driving lessons.

(Edit: I just had a quick skim read of the criteria and nope, he’s not ADHD, just lazy and contrarian)

How does location specificity limit spam? Surely the nature of spam is it costs nothing to produce and is done en masse.

And I mean any kind of bad actor really. Spammer, scammer, or even just a griefer deciding the gum up the system for lulz.

To be clear these are genuine questions, I’m not here to shit on the project or anything. I’d love more than anything for there to be good answers to them.

I’m not here to cheerlead for eBay, but I don’t think that’s entirely true.

What mechanisms are there to limit bad actors?

The most obnoxiously sanctimonious vegan I’ve ever met, wasn’t half as big a dickhead as the average “I’m a carnivore, I must have meat in every meal” manchild.