There are browser extensions that auto-redirect links for a number of sites. Libredirect is the one I’m using

It sounds like they are OK with people using the tool, but he wants them to be mindful of how its being used.

But if you’re my colleague and we’re in a Slack discussion and you post a wall of Claude output, then I’m afraid I received a different message than you intended.

The same is true for people’s newsletters and social content. It’s your name on it; are you proud of the prose and weird AI-isms sprinkled throughout it? If so, great. But I can ask Claude directly if I wanted to.

TLDR: Take responsibility for what you send to people, and don’t just ask a chatbot and blindly share the output

While I still don’t really understand it, topological equivalence?

https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2625:_Field_Topology

It seems Neetu got carried away by his emotions way too early because the final counting at the end of the result day revealed that he managed to get a total of 856 votes.

Poor guy, glad he got a pleasant surprise after 😄

What do you mean by that?

Which part of the world are you from? I’m in Canada, and we call them green grapes and red grapes

https://www.safeway.com/shop/aisles/fruits-vegetables/fresh-fruits/grapes.html?sort=&page=1&loc=3132

Meanwhile Wikipedia notes ‘“Black” (dark blue) and “white” (light green) table grapes’

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grape

Or when it spoils a joke or jump scare a few seconds early

“You’re not going to shoot me, you don’t have the…”

Just keep subscribing to things :)

We have this guide for how to do that more easily:

https://fedecan.ca/en/guide/threadiverse/finding-communities

It does sound like a genuine mistake as opposed to something sneaky.

I’m far from an expert on open source best practices, and I also wouldn’t have known the difference between taking code with a .patch file vs taking code with copy and paste. I probably would have attributed it in some other way, but I’m a bit anxious that way and tend to go even further and overdo things. It takes me forever to publish posts and website updates out for our instance.

Why do developers of open source software have to make shit so difficult?

I think that’s the nature of forks of projects. When someone makes a fork, there is usually some kind of tension between the two developers and so something that feels small to outsiders might feel more significant to those involved.

Assuming that there isn’t a better extension out there for people to switch to, this move might push some people into quitting Facebook completely.

If you’re using uBlock origin, then you won’t see ads anywhere else. Meanwhile on Facebook, every few posts will be an ad.

🚮

That already fell apart, they gave up after the site got overrun with bots. Coincidentally, they were planning to use “AI” to run parts of the site, including moderation

To be fair, I haven’t used Chromecast in a long time. Maybe even 10 years ago now.

I remember having connectivity issues, where I’d go to pause the content and realize it disconnected again. So maybe the battery drain was because of poor connections, or poorly designed apps

Its nice to be able to use it with a remote instead of fumbling around with your phone.

Also performance, decoding support, not burning your phone’s battery, etc

No ads, better performance, customizable

I also tried Projectivy in the past but I don’t remember why I switched away from it. I think there was a performance bug that was causing it to crash. Both may be good options now

The Flintstones ones are very memorable, I wonder if the marketing was helped by the fact that the vitamins look like rocks 😄

That way when they are exposed to the air and begin to discolor (which is harmless from what I understand), it doesn’t become unpalatable to children

Thanks, I didn’t know about them before today and this is probably why

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hail_cannon

There is no evidence in favor of the effectiveness of these devices. A 2006 review by Jon Wieringa and Iwan Holleman in the journal Meteorologische Zeitschrift summarized a variety of negative and inconclusive scientific measurements, concluding “the use of cannons or explosive rockets is a waste of money and effort”.[7]

There is also reason to doubt the efficacy of hail cannons from a theoretical perspective.[8] For example, thunder is a much more powerful sonic wave, and is usually found in the same storms that generate hail, yet it does not seem to disturb the growth of hailstones. Similarly, hail cannons are placed at ground level, while hail formation occurs at altitudes above 10,000 meters; a device with an effective range of 500 meters, above, would be unlikely to have an impact at an elevation 20 times higher.[9][10][11] Charles Knight, a cloud physicist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, said in a July 10, 2008, newspaper article that “I don’t find anyone in the scientific community who would validate hail cannons, but there are believers in all sorts of things. It would be very hard to prove they don’t work, weather being as unpredictable as it is.”

This is in line with how a lot of large open source projects are dealing with it

• don’t force people to use an AI tool
• don’t be a jerk to people who choose to use a tool with AI
• you are responsible for how you interact with the project. If it wouldn’t be ok if done by a human, its not ok if done by a bot

it looks like this was posted twice around the same time. since the other one has more comments and upvotes, I’ll remove this one

Personally, when I’m reading an article, I skim past the parts that explain climate change, unless it has some new bit of information (ex. updates to historical trends). It’s not because I doubt climate change, but because I’m pretty familiar with the core points already.

I think it is helpful to talk about it in longer articles where you have room to dive into the topic, and put the current topic into a relevant wider context. However, I don’t think we should require it for the sake of mentioning it. It’s not effective at changing minds when its done like that.

I agree that the last article should have included the wider context. I would also be concerned if there is a growing pattern of not mentioning it when it needs to be. On this last point, while it’s more difficult, I would prefer if they analyzed sentiment and phrasing rather than counting mentions.

I agree with the point you are making, that this study shows that there is a risk of people using these systems to generate biological weapons.

However, in this particular study, they created bacteriophages. Those are viruses that attack bacteria, and the focus of that research is usually around creating antibiotic treatments (fight bacterial infections with viruses that kill them). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteriophage