“you thought you did something there, didn’t you?”

  • 0 Posts
  • 31 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: September 25th, 2023

help-circle


  • But “it” is for inanimate objects

    Not quite. “It” is a general reference pronoun with a function akin to “the”. It can be used to refer to anything that is a thing, even if said thing is animate and/or living.

    When referring indiscriminately to a specimen of fauna, “it” is a linguistically appropriate identifier whereas “they” would only really be entirely appropriate when referring to an individual or subset of individuals, regardless of species or animacy.

    Since this fish has no distinguishable identity apart from the cultural impact it may spawn, I reckon it’s more appropriate to use “it” but “they” could also work.

    I am not a linguist. But if you are, feel free to correct me. If you feel like pretending to be a linguist, go talk to an LLM cause IDC.



  • This is not the direct result of a knowledge cutoff date, but could be the result of mis-prompting or fine-tuning to enforce cut off dates to discourage hallucinations about future events.

    But, Gemini/Bard has access to a massive index built from Google’s web crawling-- if it shows up in a Google search, Gemini/Bard can see it. So unless the model weights do not contain any features that correlate Gaza to being a geographic location, there should be no technical reason that it is unable to retrieve this information.

    My speculation is that Google has set up “misinformation guardrails” that instruct the model not to present retrieved information that is deemed “dubious”-- it may decide for instance that information from an AP article are more reputable than sparse, potentially conflicting references to numbers given by the Gaza Health Ministry, since it is ran by the Palestinian Authority. I haven’t read too far into Gemini’s docs to know what all Google said they’ve done for misinformation guardrailing, but I expect they don’t tell us much besides that they obviously see a need to do it since misinformation is a thing, LLMs are gullible and prone to hallucinations and their model has access to literally all the information, disinformation, and misinformation on the surface web and then some.

    TL;DR someone on the Ethics team is being lazy as usual and taking the simplest route to misinformation guardrailing because “move fast”. This guardrailing is necessary, but fucks up quite easily (ex. the accidentally racist image generator incident)


  • edit: currently lol’ing at the fact that some of you people out there are so pathetic that you disagree with equality. That’s fine, enjoy your sexist lives you ingrates.

    All I’ve got to say is that I might begin to take female domestic abuse victims with a grain of salt if I’ve any suspicion they would treat male victims similarly. Because to many victims, it is obvious that it can happen to anyone and be perpetrated by anyone, regardless of gender of either. But if they say men can’t be abused, that just tells me that they have never experienced abuse and removes any credibility from anything they could possibly say about the subject.



  • Seeing lots of wrong answers here, though I can’t guarantee I’ll be any more accurate. But I have a feeling this has to do with how ente.io’s email egress is set up.

    They have three email origins provided (all from Zoho): Zoho, ZCsend, and TransMail. I would expect that Zoho is for support and business email, ZCsend is for marketing, and TransMail handles transactional emails such as billing and password resets. That said, I only see a domain key for Zoho attached to their ente.io domain. This means when Gmail’s SMTP servers might not be able to successfully authenticate the email’s origin if it’s sent through ZCsend or TransMail, leading them to take the default action of marking spam for an unauthenticated marketing-/phishing-esque email.

    TL;DR Google most likely isn’t doing this intentionally, but rather ente.io’s email service might not be configured the best and Gmail is unable to distinguish it from what it considers spam as a result.


  • Wtf does this have to do with her gender? Are you claiming she does not top the charts in celebrity carbon emissions, but is being used as the scapegoat instead of a man?

    The Conservatives aren’t attacking her because of her gender, it’s because of their her influence. Misogyny has nothing to do with it, they’d do the exact same with any celebrity of any identity/orientation because they’re influence conflicts with their agenda, not because of their gender.

    This smells a lot like ground-laying for radical feminist arguments, I can’t find any other reason you would be here making a mountain out of an imaginary anthill. Moreover, I can’t understand why anyone upvoting this would care to see a non-humorous PSA in a “hello fellow teens” vaporware frame on a surrealist/(whatever it’s called) shitposting community unless it is meant to be satire.

    edit: gendered a pronoun to make it concise who the subject was


  • I created a GitLab account long before they implemented this, but never used it. Went to post an issue related to self-hosted GitLab on their issue tracker, and it told me my account was banned. I wrote an email to support and they essentially said “an automated system identified your account as a bot and banned you during an account clean up some years ago to cut back on malicious users”. I informed them that this was not at all reasonable, as I’ve never even posted anything on any GitLab account, and that I would be advising my organization to never pay for any GitLab product or service unless legal writes up the contract terms, because I have no faith in them as a vendor.

    Seriously, fuck GitLab. And if anyone from that org wants to discuss this with me, they can pipe their email to /dev/null




  • Thank you for providing that context, I saw nothing about that in my (brief, limited) search. The quote felt incomplete, but it was more than enough for me to find news articles providing extra context. Here’s the full tweet, for anyone at OOTL as I am:

    “Jews were beaten in the streets, not by Nazi soldiers but by their neighbors… even by children.

    Because history is edited, most people today don’t realize that to get to the point where Nazi soldiers could easily round up thousands of Jews, the government first made their own neighbors hate them simply for being Jews. How is that any different from hating someone for their political views?”

    My understanding has now shifted to that she could have been implying Republicans were being treated like Holocaust victims, which is patently absurd. But before even recognizing this, it struck me that the passage she quotes is accurate: history is edited, and the German public was propagandized into treating Jews as the enemy to nurture complicity for their genocide.

    That’s not to say I agree with her, because not all identity politics are equal: someone being attacked for their religious beliefs, race, or heritage is much different from someone being attacked for their political views. But, it still remains that nobody should be attacking anybody in a civil political setting. Meaning nobody should be storming any government buildings, nobody should be showing up to election sites with guns, nobody should be picket lining a Planned Parenthood, and nobody should attack anyone based on their identity (which does not include their actions).


  • IANAL (obviously)… (IAONAL?)

    • Every headline I’ve read about this says Musk is funding it.
    • Every article I’ve read says X is funding it, to make good on Elon’s promise that the company would fund legal battles for those discriminated against for their behavior on the platform
    • Neither X nor Musk are defendants
    • The complaint does however feature Pedro Pascal meming on the 45 IQ crowd
    • The complaint also features an example of Pedro Pascal in 2020 posting a meme of Bert and Ernie (and Ducky) from Sesame Street holding up a “Black Trans Lives Matter” protest sign, a LGBTQ+ flag, and a “Defund the Police” sign respectively. The complaint alleges that Pedro Pascal was not disciplined by Disney for this, which it seems to allude is evidence of sexual discrimination. There was no mention of fair use law, though Disney likely wouldn’t need to worry about that had they taken issue with his post. The allegation stands that Pascal was not disciplined for using Defendant’s intellectual property to promote personal ideology
    • The complaint, at least from what I can surmise, does not indicate what started the debacle on X, but tries to paint it as if users just started attacking Gina Carano. The earliest relevant artifact I could find was her uncaptioned August 2, 2020 post of a monochrome photo of a crowd giving right-hand-forward/Nazi salutes, with a red circle highlighting one man in the crowd who is not saluting. Gina would later add context: “Heartbreaking and powerful story of a man who changed his ways for the woman he loved… love changes the world, one person at a time.❤️” How you get “Nazi sympathizer” or “bootlicker” from that is beyond me.
    • The outrage against Gina allegedly intensified when X users harassed her to “say ACAB” and “use pronouns” (to identify herself, on her profile). These users posed this as a civil obligation and implied that the public would vilify her for not conforming, to which she did not yield. Gina eventually updated her profile to jokingly show “boop/bop/beep”, to which she was excessively derided for (likely by bots/trolls)

    “Elon Musk Is Funding […] through X” would communicate the immediate truth. Very few media agencies thought to do so. They also do not expose any of the details I highlighted in my bullet points. Nor do they link to the publicly available complaint PDF, at least that I’ve seen.

    This post brought to you by the Chaotic Neutral Centrists




  • Despite being a paying customer, my biggest gripe with them is their lack of concern for freedom of speech. They decided they can “de-platform” sites that they are not aligned with, which is shitty when A) they’ve basically cornered the SMB CDN/DDoS-protection space B) they are fine with these sites in their customer base until a pressure campaign they don’t feel like battling surfaces.

    This is referring to the KiwiFarms vs Keffles situation, where Keffles made false claims to Cloudflare about KiwiFarms endorsing/promoting suicide in an attempt to prevent her leaked discord convos from spreading. Cloudflare caved without question and suspended KiwiFarms’ account without warning.

    Otherwise, I have personally never had an issue with Cloudflare. But I am still going to look for alternatives because I don’t think it’s cool for companies with that kind of responsibility to bend a knee to bad actors out of fucking convenience.