jj4211
@jj4211@lemmy.world
- Comment on Welp 8 hours ago:
He said the magic words “my heart to you” clearly clarifies that his salute was meant to be that, duh /s
- Comment on Meta Censors #Democrat when searched for 15 hours ago:
No no, the bug is it told you it hid results instead of just secretly hiding them. Hiding them was the intended behavior.
- Comment on This community needs some uplifting posts now more than ever! 15 hours ago:
Yeah, I think a healthy amount of skepticism is good, that the likelihood of an awkward still out of context or AI generated slop is significant enough to always be doubtful. So yep, when I saw the still, ok, maybe it’s awkward still. Then a 2 second clip. Ok, maybe AI generated. Then certainly real and I’ll try to watch more for any plausible context I could have not imagined. Yeah, that was full stop a “Nazi salute but I can say it wasn’t a Nazi salute”.
It’s not that I doubted he would be totally game for some Nazism, just disbelief that he would openly do the salute, especially on the first day.
- Comment on Nintendo Switch 2 finally officially revealed 4 days ago:
That would complicate things in a pretty non console way, especially counter to Nintendo that hasn’t tried to match competitor console performance since the GameCube.
- Comment on Par for the course 1 week ago:
I suppose it doesn’t have to be exclusively masculine. I’ll take what I could get if it could coerce some of these “must be manly” folks to actually aspire to good attributes versus what they seem to think masculinity means right now…
- Comment on Par for the course 1 week ago:
You mean the man who can’t make his wife wet, and loudly proclaimed to the world that women don’t get wet down there?
- Comment on Would you do Onlyfans if needed the money? 1 week ago:
Yeah, I need something like an OnlyFoes where people pay to inflict my content on someone they didn’t like.
- Comment on If you save, we will charge you more 1 week ago:
Both California and Texas have struggles with energy costs. California with their constantly high rates, and Texas with their spot pricing occasionally royally screwing people.
- Comment on If you save, we will charge you more 1 week ago:
I’d say their example is just an oversimplification to keep it understandable. Ultimately fuel based energy has a lot of the same concerns. That natural gas facility costs money to keep viable even if, hypothetically, zero fuel were being burned in some given week. The power lines need repairs, maintenance, upgrades, and expansion over the potential capacity, not actual usage. You have fixed costs alongside the marginal costs. The marginal costs certainly make sense to map directly to usage based rate, but fixed costs are significantly covered by those usage rates as well rather than bumping up the “basic charge” sort of line item on a power bill.
- Comment on If you save, we will charge you more 1 week ago:
Seems like in such a case, it should be a different mix of base fixed monthly bill versus usage based rates, to more accurately reflect the cost structure in play.
For example, in my area it’s about $15 a month even if you use absolutely no electricity, that’s just the base charge ostensibly for the infrastructure required to deliver power, should you want it. It might make sense for this number to be increased rather than raising $/kwh rates.
Suppose the counter would be that at least with the rate increase, folks in more dire circumstances can cut back to avoid the increasing costs (which might be a bit of a feedback loop…)
- Comment on What's the endgame when the rich have all the money? 1 week ago:
I remember despite being receptive to the goal, finding that story a bit maddening.
spoiler
So the dystopian half was sadly credible enough, so not much to say there. I didn’t like the way he tried to pave the way to the “better” approach as a contrast to the dystopia, while somehow being set in the same world. So how does the socialist utopia come into being? By a nation of people transforming themselves into a better society? No, because of some benevolent rich dude. Well at least he spent his money to make it happen, but wait, first he had to get money from millions of people for no guaranteed results. So shockingly a rich dude with a very scammy seeming premise happens to be truthful, but realistically if other rich dudes saw the gullible people buying tickets to “maybe utopia one day” then there’d be competition and I can’t imagine the sincere rich dude prevaling against the con-men. But fine, it happens, not great, but let’s put that aside for now. Ultimately, the difference between his dystopia and utopia is that “poor people” in the dystopia are confined to soul crushingly terrible dormitories, and in the utopia, they aren’t even allowed into the country at all. Sure no one will become poor in the utopia, but it’s likely that any person on the ‘right’ side in the dystopia also will never become poor. The mechanism to make it seem “better” is a lottery ticket, further waved away by having someone “off screen” buy it on his behalf, to let the protagonist benefit without actually spending money. Ultimately though the mechanism to get into the utopia was effectively buying a lottery ticket from an already rich dude to make him richer, a pretty capitalist mechanism. There’s this part in the dystopian side where they reflected upon how when the plight of people in foreign lands were bad, they ignored it because it wasn’t their problem. Now they feel all too keenly being on the ‘outside’ while the rich enjoy their presumed paradise while the poor are trapped in their dorms. That now that they are afflicted, only now do they care. Ok, fine point. So the nature of the “socialist” paradise in this work is that you or someone you know paid for admittance, and so the protagonist leaves behind just a ton of anonymous folks to once again be part of the ‘in’ crowd. I made the connection that the guy basically had a lottery ticket purchased on his behalf that let him participate in what was likely just like the “rich” crowd. So I thought that the author would circle back to how quickly the protagonist got comfortable with ignoring those on the ‘outside’ again. Nope, now it was just just cool to live it up while the poor saps who did not buy the scam-like tickets are stuck on the outside still forgotten by the protagonist and the narrative, as their existence is now inconvenient to the message. Then there was the solution to crime, which I thought would touch on a dystopian facet. That there’s a mandatory centrally controlled brain implant that, when “bad” behavior was detected, it would disconnect the brain from the body to prevent incorrect behavior. A world with constant thought monitoring and removal of bodily autonomy at the discretion of a central authority? That sounds like something that will be highlighted as some nightmarish bullshit… Nope, the author seemed to sincerely love the concept as a perfectly valid way of controlling the population, and all the characters loved it to.
- Comment on SteamOS expands beyond Steam Deck 1 week ago:
Using it from chrome is how I use it.
Two limitations:
- You cannot let someone else control your screen. This is fine by me, I never want someone controlling my screen anyway. If I want to collaborate with them, I use any number of better ways to get them shared access.
- You cannot control other folks screen. This is often a challenge as too many people offer this up as the only way to remotely help them. I hate doing this because even in Windows the experience is utter garbage, but sometimes the other party just forces my hand.
- Comment on Maybe, just maybe, a company that refuses to give you time off if you have a bullet inside of you is a really really shitty company 2 weeks ago:
Yep, all you need to get reasonable time off is for your specific plight to make national news…
- Comment on [deleted] 4 weeks ago:
Think that’s a balance.
Work at a company where they have a documented process for everything. The thing is once some thing is in a document, it’s like some written in stone mandate that becomes unchangeable and inflexible. The stuff in the “oral tradition” remains flexible.
Every so often new bloid comes along, sees how dysfunctional the documented processes are, and proposes to fix the processes. Now in principle, they are right, but those of us who have been through a few iterations dread the outcome. Invariably the changes they propose to replace stupid existing processes are instead just added to existing processes, because some folks recognize the improvement but no one wants the blame for a mistake caused by leaving the old process behind. So each time we end up with more redundant stupid work.
So while in principle, documented processes are right, sometimes the political reality is stupid.
- Comment on I'm pretty sure all of us have given up on any boomer giving us anything anyway 4 weeks ago:
So I had a relative who passed, but saw it coming and tried to make some moves to make sure his only son was set up to take care of his wife, because his wife had never really had to “be an adult” and went her entire life without handling any bills or finances or anything. So when he passed at least his middle aged son would be there to handle things including their house.
So he died and sure enough, she couldn’t handle independent living. So they decided to sell the house and she’d move in with another relative. So the rest of us are thinking “oh good, at least they cashed out in this crazy high real estate market to have a bit of a cushion”.
However, no one thought about how little the middle aged son had to worry about things like housing and stuff. He never had to buy or rent a house, he had a hand me down trailer parked on a relatives land. He always had a used car gifted to him by and other relative getting rid of it. So he had no idea what he was doing either, thought a seller’s agent was a scam to take their money, and they ended up selling the whole house and land for about $50k before any one else had any idea that they were even thinking of selling.
As well liked as he is, so much frustration when everyone has to take on a burden to help them and they make such a huge mistake that could have made things so much easier.
Interesting to have a relatively large family to see all the scenarios play out. Also have a relative that is spending all his money and is mortgaged to his eyes, and another relative who lived like a pauper who turned out to have a couple million in liquidity in her 80s because she wanted her kid to be surprised when they got hit with a big inheritance.
- Comment on I hate when a PC game is ONLY available on Epic Games store 1 month ago:
Well mine is pretty petty. Every time I start up my system I’m spammed by epic advertisements in the lower right. It’s just so obnoxious, particularly since I’m on my couch and using my controller, so I have to pick up keyboard to dismiss those.
I’m so lazy I haven’t bothered to investigate options to be fair, but broadly speaking I don’t like how much it screams “look at me, look at me!” when I had no intention of interacting with their store/launcher at all that time.
- Comment on Dear Americans, be prepare to get screwed! 2 months ago:
A candidate that expressed nuanced understanding of economic principles would have been less likely to win the election.
A candidate that instead promises answers that intuitively sound right. If imports are expensive, then obviously the big business owners will build domestic and give us more money. If you get rid of immigrants, then the business owners will have to pay more for citizen workers. Simple answers that are easier for people to believe in.
Attempts to explain nuance? That ranges from nerds overcomplicating things and/or those darned liberal elites trying to truck them.
This cuts both ways. In 2020 Biden won not due to a more sophisticated understanding of things, but simply because things were bad, and the other guy therefore was the obvious choice. So to overcome an incumbent, you just have to have people believe stuff is bad, and provide some believable explanation that you could fix it.
- Comment on Realistically... How fucked is the US? 2 months ago:
Also now he’s convinced that God specifically saved him from a bullet and chose him…
- Comment on I'm not worried you're worried 2 months ago:
I don’t know what the final turnout figures will be, but if it is a lower turnout, I can think of a few: -2020 was the easiest year to mail in a ballot ever, and it got harder again as states reinstated various difficulties with mail in ballots. -So many people didn’t have to go into work in 2020, they had more flexibility to vote however they needed to do it.
- Comment on I'm not worried you're worried 2 months ago:
Yeah but the point was about what turnout was. We know who won but it’s a bit early to discuss relative turnout compared to 2020. It is likely lower, but the specifics will be a while.
- Comment on Houses in my area increases 82% in just 4 years 2 months ago:
Generally speaking, one would have hoped for a better solution. To be fair though, we faced an unprecedented scenario in 2020, and for many of the indicators, the closest to precedent that we ever had was the Great Depression. So they did manage to dump truck enough money into the market to patch up the catastrophic drop of the stock market, and provide enough to keep the every day economy vaguely functional. Unfortunately the ‘fix’ was still very ‘trickle down’ style and ended up with an enduring imbalance favoring those already wealthy rather than some alternative that might have left folks on a level playing field.
- Comment on Houses in my area increases 82% in just 4 years 2 months ago:
WFH is a logical thing to imagine, but there’s a simpler trend that can be seen by looking at two graphs: fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2SL fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MSPUS
“Please don’t melt the economy” printing press fired up in 2020 and real estate investors seemed to get plenty of that cash. While inflation didn’t quite match the M2 injection, anything “investment” like saw that bump. The M2 injection was enough to save the stock market, but housing, which did not see the same crash as stocks, got the same boost.
This is why, more than ever, people see that individuals almost don’t get to participate and big companies are instead buying the stuff and maybe letting people rent them if they feel so inclined. The big companies got the boon of the M2 and most individuals got a modest bump by comparison.
- Comment on Houses in my area increases 82% in just 4 years 2 months ago:
Don’t know about them specifically, but it seems that more than anything real estate investors are just grabbing as many properties as they can find, whether they can get tenants or not. A house goes up for sale and it’s bought sight unseen by a company almost instantly.
- Comment on Houses in my area increases 82% in just 4 years 2 months ago:
So occasionally I look out of curiosity and the reason is pretty plain.
I look for houses for sale in a suburban area as public listings, and there’s like 1 within a few square miles of the area.
I switch over to renting, and there’s like 12 houses just like the one for sale available, all owned by companies. I also know a coule that aren’t listed that have no tenants, but are still owned by one of those companies. You can tell because those yards are now waist deep grasses (in an area where HOA throws a hissy fit if your yard looks just a smidge unkempt).
Don’t know why the companies find it more profitable to buy houses people aren’t looking to actually move into, at least at the rent they are willing to accept. If I fully understood why, it might just piss me off more. Like maybe the houses work better as a loan basis than other assets, so even empty and unused they are valuable as some sort of financial trick.
- Comment on [deleted] 2 months ago:
While true, I have been scratching my head wondering why this rash of ads is happening, why they are so intent on making sure everyone knows their election participation is available to all.
One possibility: if you sit it out, people will know and blame you if your candidate loses.
Another possibility: if you vote, and the “wrong” person wins, you’ll be suspected of voting for the “wrong” person.
I don’t know which they are going for, but it has tickled my “creepy” meter, and this was before I saw it associated specifically with Trump/Vance (the ads I’ve seen mention no candidate and just seems a vague go out and vote pitch)
- Comment on Clever, clever 2 months ago:
The text has nothing unusual, just a request to make sure a certain author is cited. It has no idea that said author does not exist nor that the name is even vaguely not human
- Comment on Clever, clever 2 months ago:
That’s an odd level of cheating yet being industrious in a tedious sort of way…
- Comment on Clever, clever 2 months ago:
Strangely enough I recall various little mistakes in assignments or handing in assignments, and I lived.
Maybe this would be an undue stress/wild goose chase in the days where you’d be going to a library and hitting up a card catalog and doing all sorts of work. But now it’s “plug name into google, no results, time to email the teaching staff about the oddity, move on with my day and await an answer to this weird thing that is like a normal weird thing that happens all the time with assignments”.
On the scale of “assisstive technology users get the short end of the stick”, this is pretty low, well behind the state of, for example, typically poor closed captioning.
- Comment on Clever, clever 2 months ago:
Even if the prompt is clear, the ask is a trap in and of itself. Because it’s not possible to actually do, but it will induce an LLM to synthesize something that sounds right.
If it was not ‘hidden’, then everyone would ask about that requirement, likely in lecture, and everyone would figure out that they need to at least edit out that part of the requirements when using it as a prompt.
By being ‘hidden’, then most people won’t notice it at all, and the few that do will fire off a one-off question to a TA or the professor in an email and be told “disregard that, it was a mistake, didn’t notice it due to the font color” or something like that.
- Comment on Clever, clever 2 months ago:
No, because they think nothing of a request to cite Frankie Hawkes. Without doing a search themselves, the name is innocuous enough as to be credible. Given such a request, an LLM, even if it has some actual citation capability, currently will fabricate a reasonable sounding citation to meet the requirement rather than ‘understanding’ it can’t just make stuff up.