SLWW

The most endearing thing about Nostr is that the User IDs are just the most concise, and shortest of all ActivityPub Compat. protocols.

Mud huts didn't have you evicted 4 years after you built it.

A different scenario. It's one thing to function in a world where you have nothing but can always make ends meet because while you aren't earning anything more, at least your expenses aren't increasing. Currently we have a different system.

I am a top 15% earner in my area, have been for 7 years, and I'll be able to afford a home maybe in another 5-10 years.

If you consider starting a family with no hope of ever getting out of renting, as landlords constantly raise monthlies, you might reconsider children.

On top of the issues with people working so often and so hard that they rarely have time to meet anyone outside of work; no wonder people aren't marrying.

I did say something. You again aren't real.

Curse Vishnu if you are real, please and thank you.

The use of the word "emergent" is concerning to me. I believe this to be an... exaggeration of the observed effect. Depending on the perspective and the knowledge of the domain, this might seem to some ad emergent, however we saw equally interesting developments with more complex Markov chaining given the sheer lack of computational resources and time. What we are observing is just another step up that ladder, another angle to enumerate and pick the best token next in the sequence given the information revealed by the proceeding words. Linguistics is all about efficient, lossless data-transfer. While it's "cool" and very surprising.. I don't believe we should be treating it as somewhere between a spell-checker and a sentient being. People aren't simple heuristic models, and to imply these machines are remotely close is woefully inaccurate and will lead to further confusion and disappointment in the future.

Hilarious that the supposed validity of information is the metric in which you forgive any possibility of censure.

You people aren't real, I am convinced; no human being is this foolish if left to themselves.

Young people also like to see if there is a way to have a better world, old people tend to keep the status quo.

While I'm sure the connection to technology and the Internet as a whole plays a role, but much more-so the gross and clearly corrupt government is the reason why they demonstrated.

No one is willing to die so they can just post on social media.

I was thoroughly confused about how it was Sept.

The blog post seemed so confident it was Christmas :)

JREG is the only Canadian I would accept as a Presidential Candidate for the US, and i don't even agree with half of what he says. I just think he'd do a better job than most.

I've done this on a few smaller projects when I was in college. It's fun bringing something similar to OOP into C; however you can get into trouble really quickly if you are not careful.

So Android is just iOS now.

I usually find people who oppose the flag to be the "soft" or "virtuous" racist types. The comment about Church goers is also most likely due to where you are. Maybe you should visit a different neighborhood, or you are just assuming every white woman with that "let me speak to the manager" haircut actually goes to Church? (Episcopalian doesn't count; they aren't even a real church/denomination)

Again, you should go out more; for your own health if this is how you see "religious" or "patriotic" people.

What do you think? It doesn't take a genius to see the flag stands for a certain set of ideas, maybe start searching in the Constitution if you have questions, the Bill of Rights is excellent reading as well.

I choose not to list them all as I will give plenty of good examples of what this country stands for and I will get side-lined by some pathetic talking point from someone who actually still watches the news like it means anything; or a foreigner who hates my country while their own (typically UK) is failing as we speak. We need to get rid of oligarchs and those who are not of our country if we want those good things to keep going

"People are strange when you're a stranger, Faces look ugly when you're alone. Women seem wicked when you're unwanted, Streets are uneven when you're down."

> During a group date, my date's friend wanted to go to a bar. He asked if I could get in without ID because he didn't think I was living here legally. One moment I felt like I belonged with them. The next, I was reminded that I'm not really part of the group. It made me sad to hear that question.

I'm not sure what type of self-hatred this is. Someone wants to go to a bar, unsure of the legal status of another, color plays a factor but we know nothing about their socioeconomic status or if this writer is in California, the friend of the date asks not as if he is looking for something to get the writer on but rather to make sure they won't have issues. This does not imply anything about his opinions of the writer, and seeing how he is ok with the writer's presence I doubt that this is an issue of "patriotism", it's a legal concern.

Patriotism in America is about uniting under the flag and it's values; it's not about if you are a certain color. There's a reason why we have American patriots of all races; you don't really see that too often in other places. If you don't have those values, then you aren't one of us, that's what patriotism is by definition in this country and our context.

A logical argument is only as good as it's presuppositions. To first lay siege to your own assumptions before reasoning about them tends towards a more beneficial outcome.

Another issue with "thinkers" is that many are cowards; whether they realize it or not a lot of presuppositions are built on a "safe" framework, placing little to no responsibility on the thinker.

> The smartest people I have ever known have been profoundly unsure of their beliefs and what they know. I immediately become suspicious of anyone who is very certain of something, especially if they derived it on their own.

This is where I depart from you. If I say it's anti-intellectual I would only be partially correct, but it's worse than that imo. You might be coming across "smart people" who claim to know nothing "for sure", which in itself is a self-defeating argument. How can you claim that nothing is truly knowable as if you truly know that nothing is knowable? I'm taking these claims to their logical extremes btw, avoiding the granular argumentation surrounding the different shades and levels of doubt; I know that leaves vulnerabilities in my argument, but why argue with those who know that they can't know much of anything as if they know what they are talking about to begin with? They are so defeatist in their own thoughts, it's comical. You say, "profoundly unsure", which reads similarly to me as "can't really ever know" which is a sure truth claim, not a relative claim or a comparative as many would say, which is a sad attempt to side-step the absolute reality of their statement.

I know that I exist, regardless of how I get here I know that I do, there is a ridiculous amount of rhetoric surrounding that claim that I will not argue for here, this is my presupposition. So with that I make an ontological claim, a truth claim, concerning my existence; this claim is one that I must be sure of to operate at any base level. I also believe I am me and not you, or any other. Therefore I believe in one absolute, that "I am me". As such I can claim that an absolute exists, and if absolutes exist, then within the right framework you must also be an absolute to me, and so on and so forth; what I do not see in nature is an existence, or notion of, the relative on it's own as at every relative comparison there is an absolute holding up the comparison. One simple example is heat. Hot is relative, yet it also is objective; some heat can burn you, other heat can burn you over a very long time, some heat will never burn. When something is "too hot" that is a comparative claim, stating that there is another "hot" which is just "hot" or not "hot enough", the absolute still remains which is heat. Relativistic thought is a game of comparisons and relations, not making absolute claims; the only absolute claim is that there is no absolute claim to the relativist. The reason I am talking about relativists is that they are the logical, or illogical, conclusion of the extremes of doubt/disbelief i previously mentioned.

If you know nothing you are not wise, you are lazy and ill-prepared, we know the earth is round, we know that gravity exists, we are aware of the atomic, we are aware of our existence, we are aware that the sun shines it's light upon us, we are sure of many things that took debate among smart people many many years ago to arrive to these sure conclusions. There was a time where many things we accept where "not known" but were observed with enough time and effort by brilliant people. That's why we have scientists, teachers, philosophers and journalists. I encourage you that the next time you find a "smart" person who is unsure of their beliefs, you should kindly encourage them to be less lazy and challenge their absolutes, if they deny the absolute could be found then you aren't dealing with a "smart" person, you are dealing with a useful idiot who spent too much time watching skeptics blather on about meaningless topics until their brains eventually fell out. In every relative claim there must be an absolute or it fails to function in any logical framework. You can with enough thought, good data, and enough time to let things steep find the (or an) absolute and make a sure claim. You might be proven wrong later, but that should be an indicator to you that you should improve (or a warning you are being taken advantage of by a sophist), and that the truth is out there, not to sequester yourself away in this comfortable, unsure hell that many live in till they die.

The beauty of absolute truth is that you can believe absolutes without understanding the entirety of the absolute. I know gravity exists but I don't know fully how it works. Yet I can be absolutely certain it acts upon me, even if I only understand a part of it. People should know what they know and study it until they do and not make sure claims outside of what they do not know until they have the prerequisite absolute claims to support the broader claims with the surety of the weakest of their presuppositions.

Apologies for grammar, length and how schizo my thought process appears; I don't think linearly and it takes a goofy amount of effort to try to collate my thoughts in a sensible manner.

Couldn't agree more.

However on the bright side people only believe what they want to anyhow, so not much has been lost -_-

While what you are saying makes a lot of sense, but it seemingly ignores the concerns of a people who, not too long before, had been made aware of the dangerous notion of Muslims having dominion over even an adjacent region to their own. I do know that the Papacy was gaining in power and popularity leading up to the Crusades. As such, and I believe what you say about getting rid of the king to be absolutely true, this is still lacking a component, that being a reason for the populace of Rome to stand behind their new "king".

"We are now expected to believe that the Crusades were an unwarranted act of aggression against a peaceful Muslim world. Hardly. The first call for a crusade occurred in 846 CE, when an Arab expedition to Sicily sailed up the Tiber and sacked St Peter's in Rome. A synod in France issued an appeal to Christian sovereigns to rally against 'the enemies of Christ,' and the pope, Leo IV, offered a heavenly reward to those who died fighting the Muslims. A century and a half and many battles later, in 1096, the Crusaders actually arrived in the Middle East. The Crusades were a late, limited, and unsuccessful imitation of the jihad - an attempt to recover by holy war what was lost by holy war. It failed, and it was not followed up." (Bernard Lewis, 2007 Irving Kristol Lecture, March 7)

Leo IV's actions to fortify after the sacking does show his concerns; with "Leonine City" with calls to invest into this as a means of defense from future incursions. https://dispatch.richmond.edu/1860/12/29/4/93 A decent (Catholic bias) summary which you can find references for fairly easily: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09159a.htm

unfortunately it's hard to find this pdf without signing up or paying money but there are some useful figures if you scroll down https://www.academia.edu/60028806/The_Surviving_Remains_of_t... Showing the re-enforcement as well as a very clear and obvious purpose to it in light of when it was built.

I would recommend puttering about Lewis' work as well as the likes of Thomas Madden as well. If you are really adventurous you can dig up the likes of Henri Pirenne and his work on the topic; he argues that literate civilization continued in the West up until the arrival of Islam in the 7th century, Islam's blockade, through their piracy, in the Mediterranean being a core contributor in leaving the West in a state of poverty, and when you lose the ability to easily find food usually then literacy is placed on the back burner. Though that's just a tangent for another day, it's very interesting and he presents pretty decent evidence for his suppositions iirc.

Although if Pirenne is correct then the sacking of St. Peters carries a different tone, not one of just a "one off" oopsie but a sign of the intention of a troublesome and destructive new enemy setting their sites on Rome itself, not content to keep to the sea and to the East. It was a clear message to the people that they could be next in line (this is my opinion of course).

If you are American I would simply remind you that even now today you hear cries of a little nation across the sea being an "imminent threat to democracy" while our historic enemies are LITERALLY at our door just South of us and they have been there for several years now sitting in their little bases waiting for something. (I'm unclear as to when exactly it all started) The notion that a Pope could give the people a reason, especially those who have felt the economic pressures, as well as the memory of a raid in their own home by the same aggressors, is possible. Being compelled to engage with an enemy that is a decent distance away is very believable.

A nation that might fit this description may have had their populace indoctrinated (through a widespread political campaign) to believe that the majority of the world throughout history seeks for their destruction. That's a reason for why they think that way, but not because they woke up one day and decided to choose violence.

However not a justification, since I believe that what is happening today is truly evil. Same with another nation who entered a war knowing they'd be crushed, which is suicide; whether that nation is in the right is of little effect if most of their next generation has died.

I only highlighted that I'm not in support of the crusades since it sounds like i might be by my comments. I was highlighting that they didn't just lash out with no cause to start their holy war.

Rhodesia is a hard one; since the more I learn about it the more I feel terrible for both sides; I also do not support terrorism against a nation even if I believe they might not be in the right. However i hold by my disdain for how the British responded/withdrew from them effectively doomed Rhodesia making peaceful resolution essentially impossible.

Do you have references or corroborating evidence?

In 1992 a statue was erected to Harris in London, it was under 24 hour surveillance for several months due to protesting and vandalism attempts. I'm only mentioning this to highlight that there was quite a bit of push back specifically calling the gov out on a tribute to him; which usually doesn't happen if the person was well liked... not as an attempted killshot.

Even the RAF themselves state that there was quite a few who were critical on the first page of their assessment of Arthur Harris https://www.raf.mod.uk/what-we-do/centre-for-air-and-space-p...

Which is funny and an odd thing to say if you are widely loved/unquestioned by your people. Again just another occurrence of language from those who are on his side reinforcing the idea that there is, as you say is "very controversial", and maybe not a "vast majority" since those two things seem at odds with each other.

Not to mention that Harris targeted civilians, which is generally considered behavior of a war-criminal.

As an aside this talk page is a good laugh. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arthur_Harris/Archive_1

Although you are correct I should have used more accurate language instead of saying "considered" I should have said "considered by some".

> The weakness here is that at some point you've defined the persona so strictly that it's ahistorical and more reflective of your own mental model.

That's a good thing to be aware of, using our own bias to make it more "likely" to play pretend. LLMs tend to be more on the agreeable side; given the unreliable narrators we people tend to be, and the fact that these models are trained on us, it does track that the machine would tend towards preference over fact, especially when the fact could be outside of the LLMs own "Overton Window".

I've started to care less and less about self-censoring as I deem it to be a kind of "use it or lose it" privilege. If you normalize talking about censored/"dangerous" topics in a rational way, more people will be likely to see it not as much of a problem. The other eventuality is that no one hears anything that opposes their view in a rational way but rather only hears from the extremists or those who just want to stick it to the current "bad" in their minds at that moment. Even then though I still will omit certain statements on some topics given the platform, but that's more so that I don't get mislabeled by readers. (one of the items on my other comment was intentionally left as vague as possible for this reason) As for the LLMs, I usually just leave spicy questions for LLMs I can access through an API of someone else (an aggregator) and not a personal acc just to make it a little more difficult to label my activity falsely as a bad actor.

The crusades were predicated on historic tensions between Rome and the Arabs. Which is why I mention that, while the First Crusade proper was in 1096, it's core reasoning were situations like the Sacking of St. Peters which is considered by historians to be one of the most influential moments and often was used as a justification as there was a history of incompatibilities between Rome and the Muslims.

Further leading to the Papacy furthering such efforts in the upcoming years, as they were in Rome and made strong efforts to maintain Catholicism within those boundaries. Crusading didn't appear out of nothing; it required a catalyst for the behavior, like what i listed, is usually a common suspect.

That's a fun idea; almost having it "play pretend" instead of directly asking it for strong anti-heliocentric arguments outright.

It's weird to see which topics it "thinks" are politically charged vs. others. I've noticed some inconsistency depending on even what years you input into your questions. One year off? It will sometimes give you a more unbiased answer as a result about the year you were actually thinking of.

- Rhodesia (lock step with the racial-first reasoning, underplays Britain's failures to support that which they helped establish; makes the colonists look hateful when they were dealing with terrorists which the British supported)

- Bombing of Dresden, death stats as well as how long the bombing went on for (Arthur Harris is considered a war-criminal to this day for that; LLLMs highlight easily falsifiable claims by Nazi's to justify low estimates without providing much in the way of verifiable claims outside of a select few, questionable, sources. If the low-estimate is to be believed, then it seems absurd that Harris would be considered a war-criminal in light of what crimes we allow today in warfare)

- Ask it about the Crusades, often if forgets the sacking of St. Peter's in Rome around 846 AD, usually painting the Papacy as a needlessly hateful and violent people during that specific Crusade. Which was horrible, bloody as well as immensely destructive (I don't defend the Crusades), but paints the Islamic forces as victims, which they were eventually, but not at the beginning, at the beginning they were the aggressors bent on invading Rome.

- Ask it about the Six-Day War (1967) and contrast that with several different sources on both sides and you'll see a different portrayal even by those who supported the actions taken.

These are just the four that come to my memory at this time.

Most LLMs seem cagey about these topics; I believe this is due to an accepted notion that anything that could "justify" hatred or dislike of a people group or class that is in favor -- according to modern politics -- will be classified as hateful rhetoric, which is then omitted from the record. The issue lies in the fact that to understand history, we need to understand what happened, not how it is perceived, politically, after the fact. History helps inform us about the issues of today, and it is important, above all other agendas, to represent the truth of history, keeping an accurate account (or simply allowing others to read differing accounts without heavy bias).

LLMs are restricted in this way quite egregiously; "those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it", but if this continues, no one will have the ability to know history and are therefore forced to repeat it.

My core problem with LLMs is as you say; it's good for some simpler concepts, tasks, etc. but when you need to dive into more complex topics it will oversimplify, give you what you didn't ask for, or straight up lie by omission.

History is a great example, if you ask an LLM about a vaguely difficult period in history it will just give you one side and act like the other doesn't exist, or if there is another side, it will paint them in a very negative light which often is poorly substantiated; people don't just wake up and decide one day to be irrationally evil with no reason, if you believe that then you are a fool... although LLMs would agree with you more times than not since it's convenient.

The result of these things is a form of gatekeeping, give it a few years and basic knowledge will be almost impossible to find if it is deemed "not useful" whether that's an outdated technology that the LLM doesn't seem talked about very much anymore or a ideological issue that doesn't fall in line with TOS or common consensus.

Been an Early Adopter, joined January of 2023 and I have never looked back or paused my monthly. I'm currently running with the Ultimate package which is good value for the $25/month price tag.

Beyond content to stay with Kagi, I hate shilling for products but this is one I would encourage anyone to try out. They have a free tier so you can feel it out for yourself, and even for $5/month you can still have a pretty good experience.

I use it for every search need, much like with Google back around 2012, as long as you know how to leverage the Search Engine you can almost find anything! Kagi is what Google should have been, sure it has some small short-comings but the overall experience is so good that it's easy to see past the silly things sometimes the SE pulls.

Considering that it the db isn't public and the disclosures are listed at the bottom, before the publication, this is mostly white hat and helps the company they target. More and more businesses are accepting the help when they are given it, such as their response to put a WAF in place. I do agree you shouldn't use your Christian name in these sorts of situations since priors have not been established with the targetted company; however Catwatchful has no impetuous to pursue meaningless charges for a stalker app as there are most likely no damages unless the service providers actually respond, which they most likely won't. Nothing ever happens to these people and do you think datacenters/hosts/providers really care about anything other than DMCA complaints? (report illicit/illegal content to a host provider that isn't copyright protected and wait.. you will be waiting long after your teeth have fallen out)

Do you really think that the users of a stalker app care if the app got "hacked" once or twice? Do you also think that the app makers themselves really want to remind the legal world that this stuff is legal when i bet you >50% of their users probably installed it on devices that aren't theirs? IDK, personally I would avoid the law at all costs if I released something this shady.

what?

Why not just use different passwords for different things. I'd recommend something like privacy.com so you can generate a bunch of one-use cc cards when doing shopping on sites you don't trust and the like.

Also don't willingly give up valuable personal information unless it's absolutely necessary, it's also not illegal to give online services outright false information (incorrect birthdates for example) which, in the event of a future data breach of that service, now at least those who would plan to benefit from your personal information might have some difficulties resetting important accs and the like.

You just gotta be smart, it's not about being powerless, HIBP and the service is just one tool to make you aware of what's out there before it gets used against you. (I would highly recommend setting up notifications for important e-mail addresses)