I never understood that. Apparently they use it as a primary way of messaging each other? At least that’s what younger relatives have told me. I’ve tried to have them explain what makes the app designed to hide/delete stuff after it’s been read better for communication, but so far haven’t gotten an explanation I could make any sense of.

“Enshittification will continue until revenue improves”

I’ve found that regex is maybe the programming-related thing GPT is best at, which makes sense given that it’s a language model, and regex is just a compact language with weird syntax for describing patterns. Translating between a description of a pattern in English and Regex shouldn’t be harder for that kind of model than any other translation so to speak.

In general I agree: ChatGPT sucks at writing code. However, when I want to throw together some simple stuff in a language I rarely write, I find it can save me quite some time. Typical examples would be something like

“Write a bash script to rename all the files in the current directory according to <pattern>”, “Give me a regex pattern for <…>”, or “write a JavaScript function to do <stupid simple thing, but I never bothered to learn JS>”

Especially using it as a regex pattern generator is nice. It can also be nice when learning a new language and you just need to check the syntax for something- often quicker than swimming though some Geeks4Geeks blog about why you should know how to do what you’re trying to do.

Ngl you had me until the 1772 bit

Well it’ll still be climate change, just a more abrupt one.

Looking up “historic” election victories for the German far-right

First of all, that speech is awesome.

But I want to comment on something regarding modding, and ask an honest question: Shouldn’t reiteration of historical speeches or texts be omitted from rules about slurs? I mean, reiterating a speech, or a section of Huckleberry Finn, is obviously not the same thing as devaluing someone by calling them a slur. We actually have a quite hot debate going on in my country about this now, where some teachers were harassed for “being racist”, because in class they read aloud a famous poem written by an immigrant about racism, where he writes some of the things that were shouted at him. The whole point of the poem, and of reading it in class, is of course to make a point out of how bad racism is, and to educate about racism. Still, these teachers have been stamped as “racists” because they reiterated specific words in the poem.

For the honest question (I’m not American or a native english speaker): Isn’t there a historical difference between the word “Negro”, and a certain similar word I’ll refrain from reiterating? The way I’ve understood it, the former is a historically more neutral form, that was simply used the way we today would use “black person”, while the latter has more or less always had some kind of devaluating undertone. I’ve gotten that interpretation, among other things, from having read speeches where people are promoting equal rights, and use “Negro” to refer to black people, while clearly not believing that they are inferior in any way (hence the promotion of equal rights). Of course, today, both words are considered unacceptable, but I would like to clarify if I’ve misunderstood, as it helps in interpreting things that were said or written in the past.

I would love to see Harris just stop for a second, turn over towards Trump, and say something like “Your mic is turned off you know, could you stop yelling for a moment?”, and have the cameras cut to a silent video of Trump furiously yelling at his turned-off mic.

I think it’s horrible to see what the Taliban government is doing to oppress the people of Afghanistan. I’m also surprised that so few people of Afghanistan showed any real will to prevent Taliban from taking power. They had 20 years to prepare, with ample support and loads of equipment from NATO and others, and when the foreign forces left they just … capitulated.

It’s baffling to me that seemingly nobody was willing to fight to prevent this. Thousands of people were at the airport during the last evacuations, and I vividly remember videos of people holding on to cargo planes that were taking off in an effort to get out of the country. Lots of people clearly knew it was going to get bad, but seemingly nobody was willing to fight to prevent it. I honestly have a hard time understanding how that happened.

Of course, Li-ion batteries will never cover large-scale power demand. Not primarily because of lack of lithium, but because it’s a technology that scales far too poorly into the MWh/TWh scale, and has a far too short lifetime.

The battery tech we need for truly large scale storage is different from what we need for small, portable storage. Stuff like redox-flow batteries are looking promising.

There’s also hydrogen, with different storage methods being actively researched- from direct storage to using ammonia as a carrier.

The issue with using mechanical storage (like pumped hydropower) is threefold (off the top of my head):

1. It has ridiculously low energy density
2. Even after > 100 years of pumps and turbines, the power loss in a pump/release cycle is very high.
3. It’s heavily limited by geography

I’m not saying pumped hydropower isn’t part of the solution: I believe the solution is that we need many solutions. I just think it’s important to point out that battery tech isn’t some monolithic thing, and that there are issues with pumped hydropower (and mechanical storage in general).

And that’s just regarding stuff that’s distributed pre-built with a package manager. Truth is, if you’re down to build stuff from source, you can just follow the Linux guide and everything will work right out of the box far more often than not.

Let them use the ATACMS too.

Came here to say this. Just get home brew up and running. One you have gcc and your other basic tools installed, there’s very few Linux guides that won’t work on a Mac. A couple shell tools have different names, but that’s about it.

The currently most viable counter to artillery in Ukraine today appears to be either fpv drones, which have relatively short range and limited payloads, or counter-battery radar + artillery, which exposes your artillery by putting it in range of enemy artillery.

Ukraine typically has more accurate artillery than Russia, and seems to win more artillery duels, but of course still has an issue because of Russias huge volume of guns.

Targeting the drone operators is definitely something both sides do- they were considered priority targets last time I heard someone mention it. The issue, as someone else pointed out, is locating and hitting a small, highly mobile person or group that can operate from behind cover and concealment. That turns out to be pretty hard. Just consider that an infantryman’s primary survival strategy is “stay hidden when you can, covered when you can, and move as fast as possible when exposed”, and that drone operators are doing exactly that, while also not needing to stick their head out to be effective.

The issue with cruise missiles and bombers as a response to artillery fire is the response time and air defences.

A cruise missile launched from well within Russia takes long enough to reach the target that mobile artillery has sufficient time to get out. You also need a significant amount of missiles if you want to get any through the air defences.

Bombers struggle to get in range for conventional bombs without being shot down. They also have the issue of response time.

Cruise missiles and bombers are more suited to rather stationary targets, like a command Center, FOB, strongpoint or trench system.

No they’re not. Go read the actual article classifying them.

Also stop moving the goalposts. Fin whale catching has been heavily regulated, even in countries that still permit whaling (go read the source you linked in your other comment). You can’t start with “Whales [in general] are endangered, and are being hunted for food” and jump to “This specific specific whale that is very heavily regulated, also by countries that permit whaling, is not quite endangered but vulnerable”, and act like you have a counter argument to anything.

What you’re running here is a masterclass in bad faith arguing: Moving goalposts, mis-citing sources, and jumping from bastion to bastion. All while nobody has even disagreed with your major opinion (whales shouldn’t be hunted) but just pointed out that what you’re saying is factually wrong.

Come on… you’re even linking the sources yourself at this point, just take some time to read them.

First of all, you explicitly stated “endangered”, while the source you’re linking says “vulnerable”, which is a category specifically made for species that are threatened but not endangered.

Secondly, the source states that Japan has no reported fin whale catchings since 2019.

Finally: You can’t accuse me of cherry-picking when you’ve stated that “Whales [in general] are endangered”, and I respond with sources stating that seven of the most commonly hunted species are “least concern”, when you then cherry pick an example of one species that is heavily regulated, even by the countries that permit any catch at all, and that species isn’t even endangered but vulnerable. What you’re doing is pretty much the definition of cherry picking: Finding a single example that almost supports the claim you’re making.

You’re free to argue that you don’t like the idea of people eating whales. I’ll leave it to you to explain why. What I won’t let stand unopposed is when you’re basing your argument on disinformation, and back-tracking or moving the goalposts when confronted.

Just yell “save the whales” and be done with it. And stop acting like it’s based on some objective fact that doesn’t apply to every other animal that’s hunted for food. It’s not- it’s a sentimental thing, and that’s completely fine, just be honest about it.

Note that I have not once in this thread defended whaling, or the hunting of endangered species. All I’ve done is point out that you’re spreading falsehoods to make it seem like what is in essence a sentimentally based opinion has backing in facts.

What whales? No whale of any kind had anything to do with Denmark signing an extradition treaty with Japan or with Denmark arresting someone who’s wanted for committing a crime, which is what the comment was about.

Did you respond to the wrong comment?

Let’s take a look at what the actual facts say about the conservation status of some of most commonly hunted species that are regulated under international whaling conventions:

• least concern
• least concern
• least concern
• least concern
• least concern
• least concern
• least concern

Go on, back-track some more, I can’t wait to watch.

Or, you know, make your argument that you don’t think people should eat whales without relying on either being uninformed or knowingly spreading disinformation. You don’t really have an excuse here: You’re very clearly just stating falsehoods as if they were fact and building your non-existent argument on that. You can do better.