Jesus, what a terrible headline. Bro took “So many times female superheroes are so perfect. She’s not that at all.” and went FINALLY AN IMPERFECT FEEMALE SUPERHERO, THIS WAS NEVER ALLOWED. The writing is awful, too. Just trying way too hard to be quirky or “irreverent” or wtf ever buzzword bullshit they try to pull these days. Really has that gross pick-me faux-feminist “men bad” vibe.

This is an interesting one and I think I’ll actually agree with them on this one, although I suspect for different reasons. Of course I should probably acknowledge that the Times person of the year is about someone influential in that year regardless of whether or not it was a good thing. Considering the gargantuan size of the AI bubble in economics, the invasion of generative AI slop on the internet, and the reckless predatory behavior of these AI companies, I’d definitely agree with them being highlighted as maybe most influential this year. However, I can’t help but wonder how well this take will age.

While I certainly hard agree with the general sentiment of ‘fuck AI’, especially for this current iteration of generative ai, and believe we’re currently seeing many of the cracks in the AI bubble starting to form, and I even wholeheartedly agree with the idea that this current form of AI just “ain’t it” and is effectively a dead end, I don’t think this take will age poorly for any of these reasons, at least not primarily. I think it’ll be more of understanding how this current push of AI is influential and therefore giving more weight(heh) to the data these AI models train on. I understand using these tech bros as their person of the year for being the face of training the AI models, but I think the issue with how this will age is specifically because of how the models are trained, marketed, and used. While I won’t say something silly like “ackshually, the training data should be person of the year”, I do think it’s more along the lines of the data itself being more influential, but I will disagree with the idea of current AI models communicating the information accurately, well, or even pervasively. Considering the amount of human intervention required to use AI models with warranted confidence and the limited amount of legitimate use cases, I find the influence of current AI models to be superficial. While I get that it’s vague,

I think a better candidate would be “internet contributors of all time” or something along those lines, because I think we’ll find the influence of those that have actively contributed to the online world over time have become much more pervasive as of the last few years while certainly flying under the radar. An admittedly weak argument is to point out that current AI models simply wouldn’t exist without the massive amount of internet engagement over time. And I think I should also point out the very obvious ultra-horny pursuit of any training data these tech bros can get their hands on. And, finally, I would also point out that probably a good majority of the actual architects that did the actual work on these AI models were among those internet contributors themselves, some maybe even to an obnoxious degree. In any case, I’m motioning to historic internet data lumped in with data to this day as the influence mainly because of these tech companies and their enshittified ai models being so unusable and obnoxiously marketed so as to revive an appreciation for a more human internet. In light of this, I think we’ll find that the influence of generative ai and these tech companies have been greatly exaggerated, while the actual use of the internet is strongly resisting removal and erasure of it’s human elements.

Or maybe I’ve been talking out of my ass. I’ll admit that it wouldn’t take much to convince me what I’ve written is misguided, but I find the tension created by AI bullshit to be fascinating in how it has influenced us.

Civil Forfeiture Now Amounts to More than All Other Theft & Burglary Combined

FTFY

Work at the speed of thought? Bro, that’s not at all possible. Like, legitimately, wtf?

He says a thesis written in two years would be better than one written in eight, therefore faster is better. Okay, a bolognese made in 6 hours is better than one made in 30 minutes, therefore slower is better. If I can use your same argument to make the opposite point, your argument is bad. Also, to be clear, if your bolognese takes less than four hours, you are wrong.

Speed as a universal metric is just silly and a downright childish oversimplification. Fuck your speed, use a relevant metric. On top of that, it has been and still is an absurd expectation from capitalists to do everything faster, and this “article” reeks of said absurd expectation.

Unfortunately, nothing is known about the alleged victim of Luigi Mangione. It seems as though he may ironically be just as soon forgotten as his many thousands of victims denied the Healthcare they needed for the sake of some bloodsucking ‘shareholders’ making more money while contributing nothing of worth to society. He may or may not have been a father and husband, but he also may or may not have killed his own humanity by depriving thousands of others of their own fathers, mothers, children ,cousins, friends, etc. I’m not explicitly saying that he deserves to be forgotten, but I’m not sure I’d want to remember someone if they were anything like the later possibility. But what do I know? ¯_(ツ)_/¯

This BRUTAL ASSASSINATION of a poor little innocent ceo who definitely didn’t profit on the corpses of thousands of people who were denied healthcare specifically because of his own intentional policies. This precious baby ceo was MORDERED in COLD BLOOD by this bloodthirsty mass murdering immigrant minority who hated him because FREEDOM and the BRAVE and BOLD decision of the ceo to allow poor people to be able to CHOOSE to die via paperwork as a weapon. Surely this ceo who’s name we can’t find for some reason is smiling down on his beloved healthcare industry from the heaven that definitely exists. We hope the ultra powerful and scary mass murderer Luigi Mangione gets the JUSTICE the people of this country are clamoring for.

Look man, I’m not saying there’s a conspiracy here, but I’m not exactly expecting a quacking duck-shaped car to roll out of the fucking Duck Factory.

Yeah, I appreciate it. It’s so aggravating seeing silly baby shit like this that only serves to hold any actual progress back. It’s not only eyeroll-inducing to hear things like “hUmAn BaD” or “America bad”, it’s just entirely unhelpful for how childishly oversimplified it is. I appreciate the passion many leftists have that talk like this, but it does so much damage when it misses the point just so very hard.

Removed for “civility”. What a fucking joke. People get bent out of shape over the most ridiculous shit.

Removed by mod

Oh hey, I appreciate you engaging with my absurd and irrationally earnest beef with this idiom.

So I hear what you’re saying about salt helping with bitter flavors, but I don’t think the flavor of poison is the primary issue with why you wouldn’t want to ingest it. I think my point still stands that if we’re doing this weird eating information thing, you still just don’t eat it if it’s poison, regardless of whether you do or don’t have an antidote. Or a way to flavor it.

I was actually aware of the Latin word translated as salt for this idiom also meaning wit, and I’m actually glad you brought it up. “Consider this with a grain of wit” would be a fantastic idiom and I’d be all for it. All the more reason “take it with a grain of salt” makes no sense if it’s a bad translation.

I understand the idiom stands as it does in our language because language standards are more about usage than rigid systemic rules, but COME ON! There’s gotta be a line, right? I get that trying to standardize language is real tricky and historically has been very problematic (looking at you, rich Victorian British fucks), but man, some of these things are so useless that they couldn’t even qualify as filler words. I know it’s weird how hard I hate this fucking idiom, but also fuck this idiom.

Not trying to throw shade your way, just to be clear. I appreciate your engagement. All shade reserved for this damn idiom, though.

Man, to this day the phrase “take it with a grain of salt” makes no sense to me. For one, I see people use the phrase(as above) as adding a singular grain of salt… which wouldn’t do anything. But if, as suggested here, it’s more to point out that further seasoning and/or flavoring isn’t required, then what… what? Are we eating information? What does that even mean? If it’s seasoned, then why does that mean I should be skeptical? If someone makes something I would be skeptical of, why tf would I eat it?

I actually looked this up because it was(still is) driving me crazy. A possible origin of the phrase goes back to Pliny the Elder adding a grain of salt to a poisin antidote. Maybe it was to make the antidote easier to ingest(which, once again, a singular grain wouldn’t make a difference, so it’s possible that it’s a pinch)? So we’re skeptical of the antidote when we’re calling the info given poisin??? But it could also be the case that a popular myth was that a pinch of salt neutralized poison, possibly referring to a misunderstanding of Pliny the Elder’s recipe. But if something is poisoned, don’t fucking eat/drink it? Like seriously, if someone you don’t trust gives you food/drink that you think could be poisoned, and we even temporarily grant that a grain/pinch of salt neutralizes the pain, it STILL doesn’t make sense, because why would you accept anything from that person at all if you think they’re trying to kill you??? ALSO ONCE AGAIN, ARE WE EATING INFORMATION IN THIS HYPOTHETICAL??? WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN?

And then I’ve seen the camp of using salt as a currency, leaning into the value aspect of it, suggesting adding a singular grain of salt finally gives it value(which, like… is that what you mean?). Since the phrase is supposed to invoke skepticism, I’d imagine the value measured is truth? So if the salt you take the information with is skepticism, then how does the skepticism alter the truth value? And, again, if the information is worthless don’t buy it for any price, same as don’t eat the fucking poisin. At least in this scenario we’re not eating information.

In any case, and even aside from whether or not the idiom even makes sense, I don’t understand why the phrase is even used at all to advise skepticism since any usage I’ve ever heard or read of it is clearly(to me) redundant and/or unwarranted. “This comment comes from [unreliable source], so take it with a grain of salt.” Yeah? It’s an unreliable source. If someone already knew, the added idiom is kinda insulting. If someone didn’t know or disagreed(that it’s unreliable), then the added idiom only serves to add confusion. “The numbers may look promising, but take it with a grain of salt.” Okay? Yeah, obviously don’t draw conclusions from just “the numbers” as there’s always more to whatever form of statistical analysis this hypothetical is, but it’s totally unclear what the idiom is even trying to say. The numbers lie? The numbers are an anomaly? The source is unreliable? It actually looks bad if you look closer? And if it’s to point out that it could be any of those things and more, well no shit, bro. Once again, if someone already knows to be skeptical, it’s insulting and unwarranted, if someone doesn’t know to be skeptical, they need to be informed of the reason to be skeptical before “be skeptical” makes any sense. It’s functionally useless.

I don’t get it. I don’t get the appeal, I don’t understand how’s it’s supposed to mean what it’s supposed to mean, even granting that language and phrases evolve in strange ways. I don’t understand how and why people use it. I don’t understand how people see logic in it. I dunno, maybe I’m the idiot here.

TL;DR: Please stop eating information, thank you. I don’t understand the phrase, so take it with a grain of salt(?).

Jesus, they really are just cartoon level evil. Like, a five year old wrote this and the adults are like “lol, that’s unrealistic, but you’re five, so ¯_(ツ)_/¯”.

To call America a fascist state is just dishonest. To call the EU fascist is unhinged. Where America is certainly struggling internally with a legitimate attempt at a fascist takeover, too many fundamental principles of the republic remain intact to honestly define the country as a fascist state. There are plenty of things to criticize about the US government, it being fascist isn’t one of them.

Russia, however, is literally doing an old school imperialist invasion right now. Like, shaky casus belli and everything. They’re even throwing in a whole host of red flags indicating a genocide. Their “elections” are consistently used as textbook examples of rigged elections using statistical analysis. Political enemies of Putin are assassinated, jailed, and suppressed. The state sponsors a narrative campaign of a fictitious idealized Russian ethno-state. Public dissent is actively and harshly suppressed by the state. There are re-education camps to indoctrinate certain demographics with Russian supremacist propaganda. Russia is a fascist state. The tankies that rush to defend Russia online are defending a fascist state. That is directly contradictory to leftist principles and is, quite frankly, fucking stupid.

So to reply to someone pointing out how ridiculous it is for tankies to support a fascist state like Russia with “hurrdurr libs support fascist usa/eu” is yet another dishonest strawman wrapped in a red herring. And, certainly no surprise to anyone paying attention, just serves as another example of a tankie talking point that refuses to engage the actual argument.

Yeah, the support of a blatantly fascist/imperialist state like Putin’s Russia by self-described leftists is absolutely wild to me. I’m not convinced they’re serious people. Like, yeah, there’s some silly infighting between leftists online, but from my experience, it’s usually tankies saying some smug bullshit blanket statements and defending authoritarian douchecanoes.

That’s it exactly. I’m so sick of these dickheads jumping online and talking all the way out of their ass ‘just refuse unlawful orders, bro’. Like their COC isn’t gonna fuck them every kind of sideways for refusing orders via the UCMJ. Like, this isn’t spending a weekend in jail and then it’s over kinda shit, this will absolutely ruin your life. You could be spending years in the brig, reduced rank, reduced pay, possible dishonorable discharge while trying to fight the charges if you manage to win the case. On top of that, you want these soldiers/airmen to directly bring a legal fight to a federal administration that is likely to fuck them despite any legitimate grounds to refuse unlawful orders/conscientiously object? Get fucking real. Military personnel have the regular law AND the UCMJ to fucking deal with. These bros are fucking trapped.

I think this is a great question because it absolutely gets the point. The enemy is the system, not the people. This informs you both who and how you fight back. So when someone is saying something bigoted for religious reasons, the problem isn’t necessarily that particular person, but the religious system that brainwashed them. In fact, it was a specific flavor of that religious system.

I think a more clear distinction can be found in feminism. Feminism isn’t about fighting men, but fighting patriarchy. So, sure, there are men who are dickhead misogynists, but they are also potential allies that are also hurt by patriarchy. It’s the system and those who specifically aim to perpetuate said system. Social philosophers tend to point to systems rather than people constantly, because it’s so common for people to point out symptoms rather than the cause. So when we know to identify patriarchy rather than misogynists, yeah, we’ll still call out misogynist men for sure, but also women that perpetuate patriarchy.

So if I’m blaming the system rather than the person, maybe I’m recognizing the religious person’s commitment to truth and appealing to that rather than labeling them the enemy and writing them off completely. I think something that gets lost in all the polarizing bullshit as of recent is recognizing that a great way to make another bigot not exist is to persuade them to not be a bigot anymore. The enemy isn’t people, it’s the fucking system. Like the great poets have said: “Don’t blame it on the Needy, don’t blame it on the Poor, don’t blame it on the Jew, blame it on the system. Blame it on the fucking system.”

All these years later and I’m still so pissed about how fox handled the show. Truly one of the great injustices of the century.

I still can’t get over how hilarious the scene of Mal fucking with Simon about Kaylee being dead was. The cut to them laughing was so perfect. The editing was so masterful in the show.

Well, I appreciate your vote of confidence. I’d like to point out that OP started the post asking for advice and continues to engage with everything despite appearing to only want to rant. It’s possible that what I’ve said is indeed not what they want/need, but it’s also possible that it’s exactly what they want/need. Whether or not they’re receptive isn’t up to me, but whether or not I try is. And that’s exactly my point.

Oh, okay, now you’re just assuming things about what I have or haven’t been through? That’s extremely arrogant of you. I don’t know you and I don’t know what all you’ve been through, so I do my best to not make any assumptions, I’d appreciate it if you’d extend the same courtesy back.

Regardless of what happens to any one person, they have control over their reaction to it. You keep comparing your life to others, but what good is that? You got dealt a shit hand while others do evil and thrive, it happens every day. Hell, story of my life, too. The difference is what you do about it. You know what I do about it? I do my best to help others never have to go through the same bullshit. Whether or not I fail is not up to me, but whether or not I try is.

Can you just stop?

What I find interesting is that you started this post and are free to disengage whenever you want, yet you haven’t. Why is that?