Yeah, I mean I don't trust it for any kind of facts, but it's really good at figuring out what you want from a vague description, or finding a title based on a few unique things about the movie/book/song. It's also a good thesaurus when the word you want is on the tip of your tongue and just can't quite get it. It's pretty fucking awful at everything businesses want it to do.
Worst case scenario OP checks it out and that isn't it.
This is one of those rare cases where AI might just be useful. ChatGPT suggests this:
The game being referred to sounds like " Monkey Business," an old game from the classic Macintosh era. In this game, players managed a business involving monkeys and bananas, with the primary objective of selling bananas to turn a profit. The game was known for its simple graphics and pixelated art style, typical of early Mac games.
"Monkey Business" was a business simulation game, and the reference to a monkey in a suit aligns with the humorous and lighthearted nature of the game. It’s understandable that the poster’s mother would remember it fondly, as it was a unique and quirky title from that era.
It could be those are just preferred news sources for them. If I were in the habit of reading news and posting what I thought was interesting, I would probably browse a handful of sites and maybe you'd be able to see a similar pattern.
But I can't figure why they never comment. Not even to add clarifying information or links or whatever.
Their posts are largely well received and commented, but yeah it's a little weird. I can think of a few possibilities for this, but whatever they're doing doesn't seem like typical user behavior. They don't seem to be shilling for Tesla because I see at least one semi-negative post.
The loss of journalistic integrity is the most damaging result of the enshittification of the internet. I've thought for years about how to fix this, but I can't think of any way. Information is a commodity with no intrinsic value. So "news" whores itself out to donors with an agenda or advertisers.
This was supposed to be better than the gatekeeping of the 70's and 80's where you had a few major papers and 3 TV stations, and they could bury stories that went against their self-interest or agenda. But somehow we've made it worse.
Two things I would never go to school for these days: teaching and journalism. And that's fucking tragic because those are maybe the two most important jobs there are.
It is, or at least was, a controversial treatment for anxiety. And my grandma was drug seeking. She just wanted to be bombed out of her mind on Xanax, so I can even see looking for other treatment options out of desperation because nothing worked the way she wanted and they wouldn't give her enough Xanax.
I get it. It was just hard to watch her after her treatments. At first the memories came back, but eventually they didn't.
But that's just my experience. I'm not going to argue with medical science because even if future science shows mistakes were made, it's not like I have the knowledge or experience to do better. But science grows by being challenged and proving itself or being proven wrong. I'm okay with it being challenged by actual professionals - not by Scientologists.
I think I was petty clear it's an anecdote. There's not very much to discuss here other than us nodding our heads in agreement that Scientology is bad. This is a discussion board. I discussed.
100%. I am self-aware here. I'm not a professional, I just was in frequent contact with her during that part of her life. She was in one of those independent living places after my grandfather died, but still had her wits. This wasn't end of life care. We could carry on long conversations about all kinds of things, past and present. If you're implying it was dementia or Alzheimer's, she never was diagnosed with either and lived another 15 years or so.
I know, anecdotes aren't data. I trust the medical profession as a whole. But there have been a lot of reproducibility issues with studies that have come out, particularly in the area of mental health. And between that and my experience I'm okay with taking another look at the data. But if researchers and clinicians are satisfied, I won't gainsay that.
Not sure what to think about this. I hate Scientology, but I'm pretty iffy on ECT. My grandma had those treatments for years and it seemed to treat her anxiety by destroying her memory. I looked it up and treating anxiety with it is "controversial."
That doesn't make me an expert in it and maybe there are folks it does wonderful things for, but at least in her case they probably should've just loaded her up with Xanax. Not that that is a wonderful option either, but that was really all she wanted and I think she put up with the ECT to try to convince them she needed it.
So Scientology can get bent but I'll allow for the possibility that maybe the stopped clock could be right here. Or maybe you folks have all seen it work much better than I have.
Edit: I should make clear - science should be challenged by researchers, not Scientologists. That's how science works - withstand falsification. If this causes any non-idiots to look at the data and reaffirm the treatment, I'm for that. As stated, Scientology itself can get fucked and die in a fire.
I've visited NY and Chicago, but I guess my digs were nice enough not to notice. And I used to live 75 minutes (assuming no traffic lol) from DC—far enough away that I didn't have to deal with that kind of thing. Just like maybe some highway noise from far away.
I did once have a townhouse that had a rail track in the back yard, but I know what I was getting in that case. It was only noisy when there was a train.
I'm not really a fan of execution. It would be a shame if that happened in any but the worst cases. Just trying to motivate doing one's best. Maybe you only need the carrot and not the stick.
I think anyone who wants to lead a country or hold office should be forbidden from it. Figure out some qualifications to disqualify anyone truly unfit to lead and have a lottery for everyone else. Maybe give out extra entries for volunteering or other public service, but make the process uncorruptable.
Then at the end of their term everyone gets to vote on how good a job they did. Maybe execute or imprison anyone who gets a bad enough score. If you get high enough, you get a nice pension and favorable mentions in history books. Either way, no one is eligible to be picked again. They could advise the next administration if everyone agreed.
I can think of a hundred ways this could go badly, but I'm not sure the result would be any worse than what we've got.
There is no organization of people, from a marriage to a nation, that can't be unbalanced. Someone always has influence (wealth, power, knowledge) that can be used corruptly or violently to take from another.
Yeah, I mean I don't trust it for any kind of facts, but it's really good at figuring out what you want from a vague description, or finding a title based on a few unique things about the movie/book/song. It's also a good thesaurus when the word you want is on the tip of your tongue and just can't quite get it. It's pretty fucking awful at everything businesses want it to do.
Worst case scenario OP checks it out and that isn't it.