

Funny enough it almost never means they care.
Joined the Mayqueeze.


Funny enough it almost never means they care.


The further into the future you are trying to predict the weather, the more the reliability drops. The last time I heard a meteorologist talk about it, it was 5 days into the future for a specific location. Anything more than that was as reliable as reading tea leaves. You can say it’ll rain in Asia 10 days from now but you cannot say with any certainty it’ll rain in this village.
The climate which we ruined will provide us with punishment. Warmer oceans will give us stronger tropical storms. But they’ve gotten pretty good at detecting and outlining their likely paths. That sort of predicting is likely to improve with more storms and more data. Another suitable punishment is torrential train causing flash flooding. In the places with good satellite cover, they can see that and warn people with an hour’s lead time or thereabouts. The time span is short but the prediction accuracy is good.
We as consumers are not good judges of the weatherpeople. We look at our phones and form an opinion. But we don’t investigate where the data came from, which LLM may have added its hallucinations, and what other corners may have been cut to get us this information, which we don’t pay for. So we see it’s pissing down outside, the forecast was for blue skies, ergo the weatherpeople are getting worse at their job. When it is more likely the quality of the free data declined or somebody asked ChatGPT and Claude.


I agree with you. I think it’s a bot and thus should be banned, as per the rules.
Just block and move on is okay for trolls and sock puppets. I don’t think that’s a good strategy for bots. You don’t see them any more but they keep posting using bandwidth. They’re building up a profile with engagement that will make it harder to get banned down the line when they start using the account for something worse.


Language has an influence on how one thinks. But this shower thought smacks of too great a generalization to me.


For your own mental health, I would suggest you stop living in this sub.


There are few feces filled salvoes flung at Melon Usk that I would object to. This is not one of them. The question I have though is this: do we need a new Twitter? It had its time in the sun but most people look back at it through rose tinted glasses. Before the takeover by the son of South African emerald mine owners, Twitter was in deep trouble. It had cultural relevance but was a financial flop. It benefited from being the first service of its kind with sufficient reach. I don’t think Twitter would have survived without the Nazi saluting shithead either. Its decline would have been more graceful by comparison. It would have done it without the bullshit tsunami emanating from the top, it wouldn’t have had the money to digitally undress people or other adventures in so-called AI, but I believe it would have faded anyway. People have split up from the one consensus platform to many different ones and making people switch is hard. So coming back now with a new Twitter is like announcing we will electrocute another Topsy next week. That turned heads more than a century ago but we have moved on.


If a guillotine is not okay, how about a piece of cake? It has the French Revolution connection but looks cute and delicious.
The Marie Antoinette quote is probably apocryphal but wgaf.


I would demand to see passports if all the phone operators are really Swiss, like promised. And then complain if they’re not.


The “why no more risky video games?” post was mentioned in this thread. If it was moderator intervention and you remember the post title and instance it was on you can try to look up the modlog and see if you can find it there. Open the web version and scroll down to the bottom to see the link.
I use a third-party client that puts the baby emoji by the user name for new accounts. In the age of bots and repeat sock puppet account offenders, you reply to baby emojis in great detail at your own peril. You could make it part of your routine that if you wrote more than 100 words in reply to somebody you snap a quick screenshot of the post before you move on.


It is a bugbear for some, irregardless of when the first example was documented. Loose/lose has the potential to be such an annoyance. For some people.
The word “new” can carry a connotation of “recent” but it more literally implies “the latest version.” For all intensive purposes, I did not mean to imply the controversy about the metaphorical use of “literally” was a recent development.


Déjà-vu, mon faux-nez. New account, real wordy post, same subject as a few days ago …


This will literally be the new literally, I guess.
Spelling conventions have taken quite a hit in the age of automated subtitles. We’re devolving to the 1600s where this was more vibe based. I think there is also an element of wanting to show human frailty in content so no one suspects you of pushing slop.


Sloppy slop slop - 2 sloppy 2 slop slop


A home doesn’t equal having a toilet either everywhere on this planet. I remember walking through areas of Shanghai in the early 2000s where chamber pots were collected and emptied in the morning. Erecting a roof is easier than hooking up to water and sewage pipes.


But now they want a court to treat that click as though an 8-year-old knowingly negotiated away her right to have these issues heard. It’s insulting.
In the court of public opinion, sharpen your pitchforks, light your torches, and move on Roblox HQ. This is objectively a silly argument.
Made in a court of law. Where lawyers play by different established rules. Where they are often compelled by those rules to pursue every possible avenue to get the best result for their client. Where they may be held accountable when mishandling their case. Where company execs push their own moral compass out of the way not because they believe this argument but out of a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. It’s a clusterfuck of obligations.
My gut feeling is they probably know this argument won’t hold up in court. But it may just knock whatever punishment awaits them down a peg or two.


Whether you like it or not, you have to abide by local laws. You can’t go to Pyongyang and exercise your first amendment rights either. The guy was warned and did this out of spite. Actions have consequences. Whether he just thought he was above the culture and norms as a tourist or whether he wanted to be a martyr for affected tourists everywhere really doesn’t matter. And his fate doesn’t infuriate me at all.
That being said the punishment itself is Draconian and not just mildly infuriating.


We also share half of our DNA with bananas. Therefore, we are also siblings of bananas.


There are places on this planet where mothers just breastfeed in public and nobody cares. There are places where they only do it in private. And then there are places where it’s something in between. Some do it in private because they don’t want creepy stares. Some dgaf any more because they haven’t slept for longer than an hour at a time since giving birth. More reasons exist for either preference.
You laid the creepy landmine yourself so that’s the most likely explanation for any down vote. Also, as a young parent you will learn that nobody cares about your thoughts on parenthood outside of a small circle of close family and friends. The same applies to being shown pictures, or worse, videos of your kid.
Any slightly controversial post illustrated with an image has the look of attempted rage bait too.


“Cyberspace and the information environment” because it gets slopped with posts that were written by models.
They probably looked at who users burner phones and quickly realized it’s mostly people cheating on their spouses or people of the criminal variety. None of these groups are going to start a political movement. And cheaters gonna cheat and one more obstacle for the criminal folks isn’t a bad thing. Tourists are a rounding error.
Sure, in the past we had phone booths and boxes. The majority of landlines were registered to a name, a business, or an institution. There isn’t really a long established right to have a burner number. People used to voluntarily list their names and numbers in a book. And no cheating farmer Bob had a secret line put in the barn so he could talk to his side piece.
I’m going to guess the Aussie rules apply to most of the countries we group under the label western. And there is a danger that they harvest your data but it is more likely a government requirement to register ID. Like with private car ownership in the US as well if I’m not mistaken. It’s not wildly outlandish as a concept.
Don’t look into what they make you do if you want to own a firearm.