“He’s already pulled over! He can’t pull over any further!”

Glad to see this! I don’t remember the password for my old lemm.ee account, but this was the only community I could think of that I would have missed from my subscriptions, so now you’ve saved me the effort of going looking for it.

He’s actually trying to make them destroy each other so his handlers for the UAE can fill the power vacuum afterwards.

I wonder if they’re just telling him it succeeded, to keep him from ordering another one.

The new analysis contradicts the social media platform’s claims that exposure to hate speech and bot-like activity decreased during Elon Musk’s tenure.

They might both be right. I know my exposure to hate speech and bot-like activity decreased since I stopped engaging with that platform.

I can’t speak from real life experience, but one movie that actually handles this really well (as far as I can tell) is The Quiet Man, during a fight.

There’s an example of an impromptu, casual bet between two individuals who are understood to trust one another, where they actually set the odds and agree formally, and it all happens very smoothly and naturally so as not to be boring:

“Five to one on the big chap”

“Given or taken?”

“Given”

“Taken”

Handshake

IIRC, they don’t actually show them agreeing on the wager itself, but a later scene shows the outcome and lets you calculate it for yourself. These characters are established to know one another, so I figure they either have a known amount between them that they default to for casual bets, or they just determined that off camera.

There is also an example of the more chaotic, mass, unplanned betting, where a character who is already established to be a jack of all trades known to the community pulls out a notebook and takes on the role of bookie. I think they even show the odds being adjusted in real time as the fight progresses, but I don’t recall for sure.

Turns out you’re so pro-poor, even your grammar is poor. :P

If the user has indicated that they are not interested in new features, it means they do not care about new features. They don’t want to know about them, or they prefer to find out proactively in their own time. If you still insist on ramming notifications down their throat at that point, you’re not doing it for the user. You’re doing it for yourself.

In a world without dark design patterns, there would be a single pop-up when you first install the application, to ask if you want notifications and/or suggestions for new features. If you click “no”, it should never bother you again unless you go into a menu and opt in. Anything beyond that is inherently predatory.

Ideally, that pop-up wouldn’t even exist. They could just have a collective “don’t bother me again” checkbox on every non-essential notification, so you can easily disable it the first time they become relevant. If your user has already indicated that they are not interested, any further pestering is essentially harassment.

I’ve occasionally dreamt about doing this with a bar. I picture it like the sitcom Black Books, but with booze instead of books.

Never said they were anything like the same. Just that neither of them had done anything particularly worthy of a Nobel peace prize. As you say, every American president in the past century would have gotten one, were that the case.

Oh, for sure. I’m not saying they should have given one to Obama. That and Kissinger are why it’s not completely unthinkable that Trump might actually get one somehow.

The deal thing is a smokescreen. The real reason he’s upset is that he badly and urgently wants to end a war. It’s the only chance in hell he’d ever get a Nobel peace prize, and in his delusional mind, he’s still competing with Obama.

That’s a Hunter S. Thompson quote.

Most closeted thing I’ve ever heard.

Eugenics is from the conservatives’ book.

Yeah, but that’s why it’s great to see them fighting each other. Nobody else seems able to do it better.

It’s tricky, because there’s no hard definition for what it means to “change the world”, either. To me, it brings to mind technologies like the Internet, the telephone, aviation, or the steam engine. In those cases, it seems like the common thread is to enable us to do something that simply wasn’t possible before, and is also reliably useful.

To me, AI fails on both those points. It doesn’t really enable us to do anything new. We already had chat bots, we already had Photoshop, we already had search algorithms and auto complete. It can do some of those things a lot more quickly than older technologies, but until they solve the hallucination problems it doesn’t seem reliable enough to be consistently useful.

These things make it come off more as a potential incremental improvement that is still too early in it’s infancy, than as something truly revolutionary.

That sounds neat and enjoyable to tinker with. Is there a possibility that using a tool like that will get you flagged and/or banned from Steam? Or do they not care when it’s a single player game?

Of course, true enlightenment comes only when you accept that you will never be able to play every game you already own, let go of the worldly desire to clear your backlog, and buy more games anyway. At this stage of enlightenment, you transcend the need for willpower.