Anomander

I normally hate turning to Youtube when there’s a text resource available, but I’ve definitely found there are some situations where explaining a trick or a location in text is massively harder than just watching someone do it in a video.

Not easily - I think that notebook is living at my mum’s house, from rather a while ago before I moved out.

I absolutely can when I am next there and manage to dig it up - I’ll try and remember to ping you once that happens.

At one point in time I illustrated my own version, I think I made it to like 20 plates out of 26 or so.

I had to stop working on the project while ‘out’ at like work or cafes, because people would snoop over my shoulder and then assume that I’m a fucking psycho. When I started the project, I had assumed that it was a relatively common and well-known little picturebook. Turns out no.

Also, on the subject of this song being “breakout/viral” - how hard is it to manipulate streaming numbers?

It’s seemed like the numbers there are 'semi-'manipulated in the way that Kpop can be - hugely inflated by deliberate rewatching and multi-platform streaming, but by individuals who genuinely want the song to do well, rather than bots or purchased fake stats.

It’s really seemed like ‘the right’ sees Oliver Anthony as “their guy” and rallied behind him and his song in order to push it up the charts as an imagined way of ‘owning the libs’ - and I think OA’s industry backing worked hard to seed that narrative among those circles in order to elicit that sort of boosterism from them.

There’s the necessary info, thank you! - I’ve heard horror stories about hosting exit nodes, and was immediately spooked this would result in the same issues.

I really enjoyed some darker content in terms of establishing that humans aren’t always the good, wise, enlightened people of the galaxy, consistently The Good Guys in nearly every encounter.

But shifting to that “oh there’s a dark side to all the optimism” as the consistent ongoing tone for the show rings wrong as much as the always good guys tone did with older trek.

Little guy is damn near a sphere.

No it’s still against the rules. Ref will just happen to not notice it, though. Which is definitely unrelated and totally coincidental.

For a more values-based interpretation - players have to keep the ball ‘in play’ in a way that the other team can interact with, without posing a danger to the player(s) on your team.

As in this case the play is either unstoppable, or requires the other team to somehow extract the ball from between two players’ chests, it’s a fun theoretical loophole - but is not a fun or safe way of playing football if it became a commonplace strategy. In most cases, this would be seen as daring dangerous play - either the other team needs to kick it free, or jostle the players until they drop the ball, both of which are taking pretty significant risks of injury.

The person you’re responding to is basically making the, “steal a loaf of bread to feed your family” argument. It’s complicated by the fact that loaf of bread was already reserved for saving others,

That’s a spurious argument here, though. This is like not buying groceries for two months, having the cash to buy groceries, then stealing a loaf of bread to feed the family.

These people shouldn’t be there, they’re on evacuation order, and they have safe routes to leave. Not one of their lives is in danger that they haven’t chosen. But they did choose - to put their property ahead of their own lives, and in stealing fire equipment they’re putting their own property ahead of the lives of fire response teams and ahead of all the other properties in the same area. They’re willing to have the whole neighborhood burn around them, to cut off safe evacuation routes, all to try and save their own home.

but it’s stupid to act like they’re a deranged person without a point.

They’re engaging in sophistry and misrepresenting the situation to try and make hindering firefighting efforts into something personally justifiable. It isn’t.

Could kind of see how someone facing down an impending roaring wildfire, then stealing from the same people they want help from, might be counterproductive. The people telling them not to steal fire equipment are there. They’re the ones fighting the fire.

No private resident needs that equipment “to save their own life”. They’re on evacuation order, there are safe routes out, they should not be there, and they chose to stay in order to protect their property. The bridge that sprinklers are getting stolen from, for instance, is protected so there will be a safe passage out of the area consistently even if the fire shifts in that direction.

This is about wealth - not health. Stealing that equipment is choosing to fuck over the entire region and everyone else who needs fire protection, just to better preserve their own home, is selfish and stupid.

Shocking news: people are people everywhere, not just on ‘rival’ platforms.

UPS is being UPS here.

They’re abandoning packages, then sending her a bill for COD as if she accepted the package but didn’t pay.

The fact that if she digs in and fights it she can eventually dispute each charge is somewhat separate from UPS and their collections contractors harassing her about the ‘debt’, or the new packages that keep showing up.

This would make excellent satire, but it’s pretty dismal journalism.

Ever since that day, I’ve consistently correlated success with the fluctuating number in my follower count. In fact, I would argue that every millennial who works on the internet has internalized the belief that resonance on Twitter is the only way to unlock progressively more illustrious opportunities—it somehow seems more relevant than your degree, your scoops, and even your endorsements.

Speak for yourself, please.

Many millennials who ‘work on the internet’ have understood in the past that Twitter follower counts did constitute a sort of abstracted measure of relevance, like pop culture equivalent of how often an academic article is cited by other academics. There was quite a while where that was, unfortunately, true: for example, your measure as a PR professional was tied to your ability to use your professional skills to boost your personal accounts. It was far from the only thing that counted, but it was certainly an excellent networking tool and having impressive high scores would result in more opportunities, better opportunities, and less hunting for them. There absolutely was an expectation that communications or marketing people would leverage their skills for their accounts, that they would show off what they could do for potential employers within the confines of their own internet footprint.

You could still get work without that, I still got work without that - but work would come to you if you had an impressive social portfolio, not just on raw follower counts but on things like content and engagement as well. The total sum of your social media and online presence was the portfolio of communications or media field, same way designers are asked to provide examples of past work.

And that’s still true - it’s just less and less likely to include someone’s twitter in that assessment.

I think that’s why Elon’s reign of terror has been so bitterly ironic: Everything we’ve been taught about Twitter—and, frankly, social media in general—has proven to be an enormous lie. It was always volatile, and regrettably, we made it the locus of our careers.

Things can be true in the past and false in the present. What this particular person was taught in the past was true at the time of teaching. And then this crazy thing called “change” occurred and it’s no longer true. Except, what he was taught - that conventional wisdom holds that journalists need their own personal brands - remains true. The secondary coaching, that a Twitter presence is part of that branding, is not necessarily true but also not abstractly false either.

That the author struggles with the very concept of change, feels they were promised that Twitter would be permanent, and seems to believe that people who are successful now because of twitter activity then are somehow going to wind up on the streets is hilarious, if perhaps in a not particularly kind way.

Everyone he talked to has a secure career or market position. Sure, they got there via twitter, or they feel twitter helped them achieve that - but they will be fine. Some of them might take earnings hits or need to make some uncomfortable pivots to off-twitter platforms, but none of those folks are teetering on the edge of a cardboard mansion lifestyle after sinking clearly-fruitless hours into twitter boosterism.

Lorenz predicts something of a “Great Clout Reset” on the horizon—everyone emerging from the rubble, starting over at square one—and frankly, she can’t wait to see what happens. […] Maybe that’s the silver lining. Twitter might be dying, but maybe afterwards, we can try to become superstars all over again.

Oh look, we can see how the author wound up thinking that Twitter was all-important and utterly permanent. They’re doing it all over again; and in ten years we’ll get the exact same article about whatever platform they think is actually the Real Deal right now, complaining about how it inevitably failed and Lorenz steered them wrong with bad career tips.

Very much so.

If this coin’s math and mechanics actually work in transferring wealth from rich to poor … it’ll be swamped in poor people wanting their cut, and rich people will want nothing to do with a shitcoin that’s explicitly going to take their money and give it to other people.

I’m no GPT booster, but I think that the real problem with detectability here

It will almost always be detectable if you just read what is written. Especially for academic work.

is that it requires you to know the subject and content already, and to be giving the paper a relatively detailed reading. For a rube reading the paper, trying to learn from it - a lot of GPT content is easily mistaken as legitimate. And it’s getting better. We’re not safe simply assuming that AI today is as good as it will ever get and the clear errors we can detect cannot ever be addressed.

Penetrating academic writing, for academics, is probably one of the highest barriers of any writing task, AI or not.

But being dismissive of the threat of AI content because it’s not able to convincingly fake some of the hardest writing that real people do is maybe sidestepping a lot of much more casual writing - that still carries significance and consequence.

The thing there is that like … it’s not about consistency or values. The fact that he lied is meaningless to him, throwing it in his face is wasted effort. Communication is a tool to get what he wants, not a goal unto itself.

And no one is surprised.

Elon made it clear shortly after taking over that “free speech” was speech he happened to agree with, and he had no intentions of ethical consistency on ‘free speech’ when it came to speech that was critical of him or his platform. Twitter already went nuclear on links to Mastadon and similar alternative platforms earlier this year while their dumpster fire was raging.