That would be hilarious. Please let him accomplish that and nothing else.

In 1998 Marcellus Williams was convicted of murder. During the appeals processes it was found that he was not a match for any of the copious forensic evidence at the crime scene. He was convicted entirely on the testimony of two people with long records of lying to authorities and who stood to gain leniency in prosecutions for unrelated matters in exchange for their testimony. The prosecutor and the victims family spoke out against the push to execute him, in light of the exculpatory evidence.

It was ultimately determined that being innocent wasn’t a good enough reason not to execute, and he was killed in September of last year. 22 years in prison and then executed despite no evidence he committed the crime and strong evidence that he didn’t.

If being provably innocent isn’t enough to stop an execution, then what possibly could be?

I remember reading a report earlier this year which said that most people who used AI at work found that they didn’t have much use for it and it didn’t make them more productive. So that tracks.

Makes sense that tech CEOs are still pushing it as the miracle tech which will make humans obsolete, though.

Is it actually wiping jobs?

That’s an excellent point! You’re right that you don’t need 500 word blurb to fill the void with. Would you like me to explain more about mass data guzzling? Or is there something else I can help you with?

Are people undergoing mental health crises known for always making good, rational decisions?

It was a weird show. All the contestants were nice people who reacted well to their situation, and you could see the presenters and guests getting more and more uncomfortable as the week went on - being less and less sure that it actually was funny rather than mean.

The finale was a little anticlimactic as the contestants seemed to have pretty much worked it out. I wonder if they had a little help in that department.

Yeah, that’s the significant thing for me here. Not what’s being said, but which paper is saying it.

I use Perplexity for most of my searches. Not because of ads (I have robust adblocking to the point that I’m genuinely gobsmacked whenever I’m in a situation where I can’t browse any other way, like on someone else’s machine), but because of third-party SEO and first-party paid-for search results. Perplexity is far from flawless, but unlike google, Bing, etc. and the engines which rely on them (DuckDuckGo is Bing, for example), it’s actually designed to return you the answer to your question.

We can discuss the exact meaning of “ads” and whether the paid-for search results count. I’d say they’re similar but with subtle differences. And it’s not what’s being suggested for ChatGPT here, although for over a year now I’ve been suggesting that the AI-equivalent of SEO & paid-for search results is where we’re headed.

No i didn’t

The odds are against you, for sure. It can happen, so it’s not impossible. But the odds are against you.

To increase those odds as much as possible, take one bit of advice over all others - married isn’t something you are, marriage is something you do. You’re not saying “I’m going to be with you for our entire lives” to your fiancee, you’re saying “I am going to spend my entire life working hard to make sure that we don’t grow apart or grow complacent or take each other for granted, and I fully trust that you’re promising the same thing”.

The only way for a long-term relationship to work is if both people dedicate effort to making it work. You’re looking at a life full of compromises. You’re looking at a life of times when one or the other of you is going to get sick, or will fall apart mentally, or will get addicted to drugs, or…any number of other things which can tear people apart. Are you really, fully prepared to deal with those things?

You say you want a family. What if you’re infertile? What if she needs an emergeny hysterectome? What if you find out that you have the genes for Huntington’s and you’re probably going to condemn any children you have to a slow, painful, undignified death? Will you adopt? Have you thought about it? Have you discussed it? Are you 100% sure this is the person who you want to go through those things with? Are you sure you’re the person they would want to go through those things with? Or are you just kind of thinking it’ll probably work out somehow?

Marriage is hard. It’s work. It’s not a thing you do on a day, it’s a thing you do every single day until one of you is dead.

A lot of older people are dismissive of young love. I’m not one of those people. I remember being your age and in love. I remember how deep and all-consuming it is. You will probably never love anybody as deeply again, not with the same burning passion. Not in the same way.

But love and marriage are two very different things. And I think it’s that difference that older people mean when they say things like “you don’t know what love is”. You do. Perhaps in a way they’ve forgotten. But what they mean is the mundane days. The big moments. The effort and work it takes to truly build an “us”. That’s what you don’t yet have enough experience to fully appreciate.

I wish you well. But before you get married to someone, you should try to have an appreciation of what it is that you’ll really be promising.

The advice given above to live together for a year first is good advice. That won’t give you an idea about everything, but it can give you more insight to the little things which can be more important than you think. You might think it’s cute that time she used your toothbrush without asking, or that she leaves her knickers strewn around the house. You might not feel that way in a year when she keeps doing it day after day. And you’d be surprised how significant those little things can become over time. How much are you prepared to work at it? How much is she?

Just try to be sure, going in, that you really have thought this through (because it sounds like you haven’t). And communicate. The only way you’ve got even a slight chance is if both of you communicate openly and honestly and vulnerably with each other - and not just about the big stuff.

I hate that I like his suit

It’s partly because forums aren’t really a thing these days. People tend to spend their time on places like Instagram, twitter, YouTube, etc. All algorithmically feeding them content. And that algorithm isn’t what’s best or most liked, but what is the most engaged with. So anything “controversial”. Which, in the real world, equates to right-wing content.

Seriously, say you go on YouTube and you want to watch a video about a film. Say you liked the most recent Ghostbusters and think it’s underrated. You find a video called something like “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire is actually better than you think”. It’s 30 minutes long, which is about the length of time you want to kill. You start watching and you’re agreeing with it. Then it gets to the 20 minute mark and suddenly the video is talking about the woman-led reboot and how bad it is in comparison. The word “woke” starts getting thrown around. Its lack of quality is blamed on women as a whole being incapable of being funny.

Suddenly you realise that the maker of the video is a misogynist and you stop watching.

But you’ve already watched 20 minutes. YouTube now thinks you like content of the kind produced by that channel. So you’ll see a lot more of that kind of thing, because it makes people angry. Either angry because they agree with the author about how wokeness is destroying everything, or angry because they think he’s a misogynist. But either way, they’re upvoting/downvoting and leaving comments.

Now, you’re not interested in that kind of material, but perhaps there’s a video that you wouldn’t have been recommended before which isn’t as extreme, but just has a couple of things you disagree with. Perhaps it’s masked with irony and edgy humour. Watch enough of this new kind of content and you might find yourself being a little more sympathetic to the parts that you would previously have disagreed with.

This is particularly true if you’re someone who doesn’t see themselves as being in a good situation. If you haven’t got a job, then it’s much more palatable to be told that it’s because of those foreigners coming here on small boats than it is that you’re not particularly employable, or there just aren’t very many jobs right now because we’re in an economic downturn, or that the entire system is rigged to take money from the poor and give it to the rich and that you’re on the wrong side of that equation. Those things are emotionally uncomfortable and complex as ideas. The thought “it’s all because of them” feels good, because anger feels good, and it’s simple. Just get rid of “them” and all will be wonderful again.

Same with women. Do you need to work on yourself? Do you need to actually make a conscious effort to examine your attitudes and the attitudes ingrained in society and think before you make an off-hand remark to a woman? Do you need to change your attitude and start thinking of women as complex people with inner lives who don’t owe you anything even if you really, really think they’re very pretty and they smell nice and are a bit gothy and have big tits and even if you’re always polite to them and hold the door open for them and once gave them half of your chocolate bar and she accepted and smiled at you? No! It’s the femoids’ fault for only wanting Chad and Tyrone! Come join US! WE understand you! We’re not going to tell you that you need to take any responsibility for anything! We’ll tell you that you ARE owed sex and that she’s a bitch for witholding it by putting you in the friendzone! It’s not YOU! It’s THEM! It’s all THEIR fault!

There’s a lot of people in bad situations. There’s a lot of people feeling neglected and lost and helpless and hopeless and emotionally disconnected. And the message that the answer is simple and it’s all the fault of [group X] and that if you could just put [group X] in their place then you’d get everything you ever wanted, is a very, very seductive one. “It’s complicated, and will require effort, and even then things may not get much better” is a much less appealing pitch.

Combine those things with engagement-pushing algorithms which favour right-wing content - alongside far-right groups actively trying to recruit people with irony and a “boil the frog” approach, and some platforms (twitter, I’m looking in your direction) actively trying to push a far-right narrative - and it’s not really a surprise that some people, men in particular, are moving to the right.

WhoCouldHaveSeenThisComing.gif

They’re generally treated as different animals, but toads are actually a subset of frogs. All toads are frogs, but not all frogs are toads.

She tries the second one and sets herself on fire again. She complains, and the AI apologises again and says that the correct spell is the first one…

Here’s the thing - the protections are good. If the Justice Department weren’t compromised and the President wasn’t one of the people in the files, they would be exactly the protections which make sense. You don’t want child porn released. You don’t want the names of the victims released. You don’t want information released if it will harm the chances of prosecuting a paedophile. You don’t want information released if it will make citizens significantly less safe.

If we could trust the President and the Justice Department, these rules would be exactly what we want.

There are genuinely and unironically men out there who don’t wash their own arses because touching a man’s arse is gay.

Webp is a smaller file size than jpeg for the same image quality in almost all circumstances - so it’s more efficient and quicker to load. It also supports lossless compression, transparency, and animation, none of which jpeg do. And the jpeg gets noticable visual artefacts at a much higher quality than webp does.

People didn’t adopt it to annoy you. It’s started to replace jpeg for the same reason jpeg started to replace bmp - it’s a better, more efficient format.

Where’s that cartoon about financial news stories making much more sense if you replace the words “the economy” with “rich people’s boat money”?