sjs382

The hubris of buying a domain to loudly demonstrate that you don't understand the complexities of a topic. And then you don't even put your name on it...

Anyways, further reading:

https://aldavigdis.dev/2023/03/25/falsehoods-programmers-bel...

https://github.com/kdeldycke/awesome-falsehood?tab=readme-ov...

You can run iOS apps on an Apple Silicon Mac if the developer doesn't explicitly prevent you.

> having their literacy degenerate to such an extent that they stop using alphabetic / phonetic writing systems and revert to pictographic or ideographic systems

What about reverting to referencing moving pictures?

Or was this intended to be self-referential and I missed the joke? :)

> I use a 2017 iMac running MacOS 13.7.8

ChatGPT 5.2 Thinking for me:

---

Walk.

At 50 meters, driving is usually slower overall (start car, back out, pull in), adds unnecessary engine wear (cold start/short trip), increases minor risk in a parking lot/driveway, and you’ll have to park again anyway.

Drive only if there’s a practical constraint like:

you need to bring heavy items (bucket/cleaning kit) and can’t carry them,

bad weather/unsafe walking conditions,

mobility limitations.

Gemini 3 Thinking for me:

---

Unless you’ve been hitting the gym hard enough to bench-press a sedan, you’ll definitely want to drive.

While 50 meters is a very short distance—roughly the length of an Olympic swimming pool—it’s a bit difficult to wash a car that isn't actually at the car wash.

The Logic Break-Down

If you walk: You’ll be at the car wash, getting some steps in, but your car will still be sitting in the driveway looking dusty.

If you drive: Both you and the vehicle arrive at the destination, which is generally a prerequisite for the "washing" part of the plan.

One exception: If you are just walking over to buy cleaning supplies or to see if there's a long line before pulling the car out, then walking is the way to go!

Would you like me to check the local weather for you to make sure it's not going to rain right after you finish?

If it's because you're missing and they need to investigate: every time.

If we are using a good definition of "research", I agree.

But we aren't. Research within these contexts is consulting a Google search, a social media search, watching short form videos and consulting a sycophantic LLM.

> The reality is the federal gov has been aggressive in its enforcement for decades. ICE took a break during the Obama and Biden years for some reason.

ICE was created in 2002 (24 years ago). "The Obama and Biden years" make up a full half of ICE's existence.

Flock is a terrorist organization.

The desktop app has a banner that says:

> Signal is experiencing technical difficulties. We are working hard to restore service as quickly as possible.

Status page linked in the post CURRENTLY says the same.

Worldcoin didn't gain any traction so now this?

> enabling a future Democrat in the White House to do the exact same thing

Assuming there will be a future D in the white house, I don't believe they will do the exact same thing.

I don't think the current administration does either.

Google refunded all Stadia purchases, both hardware and software, after they discontinued the platform/product. Then they added functionality (the ability to operate the controller as a generic Bluetooth controller) afterward to keep the hardware from becoming e-waste.

How is it better?

That's fine.

I can believe that a conversation like that happened once. Maybe twice, if I want to be extra generous with the benefit of the doubt. It's missing context but I can have my imagination can fill in those gaps.

But he said that this was common.

> Where's the part where you ask them to do this? Is this not something they do automatically?

It's a tool. Summarizing the news using AI is the only thing that tool does. Using a tool that does one thing is the same as asking the tool to do that thing.

> Are they not contributing to the slop by republishing slopified versions of articles without as much as an acknowledgement of the journalists whose stories they've decided to slopify?

They provide attribution to the sources. They're listed under the headline "Sources" right below the short summary/intro.

And to expand: it's a gradient, not black-and-white.

I don't pretend to speak for them, but I'm OK in principle dealing in non-absolutes.

I think it's generally understood among their users (paying customers who make an active choice to use the service) but I agree—they should be explicit re: the disclosure.

I generally side with those that think that it's rude to regurgitate something that's AI generated.

I think I am comfortable with some level of AI-sharing rudeness though, as long as it's sourced/disclosed.

I think it would be less rude if the prompt was shared along whatever was generated, though.

> AI slop eventually will get as good as your average blogger. Even now if you put an effort into prompting and context building, you can achieve 100% human like results.

In that case, I don't think I consider it "AI slop"—it's "AI something else". If you think everything generated by AI is slop (I won't argue that point), you don't really need the "slop" descriptor.

I'm just realizing that while I understand (and think it's obvious) that this tool uses AI to summarize the news, they don't really mention it on-page anywhere. Unless I'm missing it? I think they used to, but maybe I'm mis-remembering.

They do mention "Summaries may contain errors. Please verify important information." on the loading screen but I don't think that's good enough.

I think you're referencing https://kite.kagi.com/

In my view, it's different to ask AI to do something for me (summarizing the news) than it is to have someone serve me something that they generated with AI. Asking the service to summarize the news is exactly what the user is doing by using Kite—an AI tool for summarizing news.

(I'm a Kagi customer but I don't use Kite.)

> What does the US benefit from this new policy?

This really makes me feel like a conspiracy theorist, but it doesn't seem as far from reality as it should...

If there's no response: exhibiting total dominance of the region and being able to make up whatever unverifiable statistics they want re: domestic safety (drugs, gangs, etc).

If there is a response: potential for armed conflict which could become a pretense for interning more citizens with hispanic heritage, similar to what was done to Japanese Americans in the 1940s.

Depends.

If you're a restaurateur, do you have the .ai files your agency created, an Adobe Illustrator license, and know-how to get in there and change the prices? And then know where/how to deliver the result to get it printed? If so, you probably still have something better to do...

You probably pay an agency an hourly rate plus markup to get them updated, prepped and sent off to be reprinted.

Next time: negotiate fixed prices/timelines for small updates, own the files, and own the relationship with the printers.

That makes sense framing it as a skepticism about Google Gemini (a single product) rather than their interest in a category (AI).

I'm less worried about them genuinely losing interest then Google outlasting their AI competition and then kneecapping their AI product to protect their cash cow.

Agreed, but there's no denying that selling advertising is Google/Alphabet's primary business. And it's not even close.