skolskoly

A lot of it is hedging and using lots words to avoid saying something that isn't true. That way, it looks a lot like text that contains meaningful information, even though it doesn't. The speaker can pass the scrutiny of an informed audience, because they are able to substitute their knowledge into the words, as if by pareidolia. It's the sort of 'diplomatic' language you see from politicians, lawyers, students writing essays, and any other moderately intelligent person who is put in a position where they will face consequences for not answering. Behind all the fluff, there is a very loud voice yelling "I DON'T KNOW."

Also, the 'before' segment didn't contain any mention of custard tarts, football, crowded trams, mixed feelings, etc. The original had a very positive travel agency type of tone, which was replaced with a lot of very odd sounding, imperative phrases that sound like engineering-speak. ('earn the fuss' 'build trips around pastry') I'm not convinced that this thing is actually meeting its design goal of not hallucinating shit.

As far as I can see, there is still one tell that was missed/left in:

>Grok showed discipline, despite its goblin-like nature.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220202042136/https://www.fda.g... https://www.tga.gov.au/safety/safety-monitoring-and-informat...

Did some further reading, and it seems likely that the shortages were at least partially created by a boom in demand and crackdown on counterfeit ivermectin products. It's hard for me to see this as a partisan issue when everyone involved was just doing the best they could under fog-of-war conditions.

My mind went to that immediately. This does reek of being a copycat, doesn't it?

I was weathering the excessive and confusing analogies and then I read:

>introduced a level of cognitive complexity that makes Kierkegaard read like Hemingway.

and I fucking lost it.

>Sentence fragment. Sentence fragment. Sentence fragment. That's not X, that's Y.

I can't even call this LLM smell at this point it's a stench.

To be clear, I don't disagree with you, and to say otherwise wasn't my point. I do think people get confused to the point where they for some reason start labeling all sarcasm as type A or B, and the entire value of the term gets lost.

The way I see it, the non-friendly type shares a lot in common with the concept of shibboleth. Which is to say, you can absolutely make sarcastic insults to the detriment of someone else for your own, or a friend's enjoyment, by relying on shared exclusive knowledge. (In essence, holding that shared context above the other person in contempt) However, you can also just be abrasive for your own enjoyment, and that's something entirely differently. (Sadism, for example, is not inherently sarcastic) People frequently confuse the two, but without ironic context - a knowledge of false belief - it is not ironic, and therefore not sarcasm.

>Sarcasm happens when the observed irony does not extend to the speaker.

This seems... dead wrong. In the examples in the article, both comic frames function as sarcasm, because everyone involved has no illusion that anyone is going to die if they don't see the film. The irony is entirely in the speaker's statement, which everyone knows to be false, including them. People treat 'ironic insults' as sarcasm, but this only works amongst good friends who have the shared context necessary to understand the falsity of the insult. But, then socially incompetent see this and attempt it, and fail to achieve the sarcastic humour. Which is probably why people conflate sarcasm with... failed sarcasm, frankly.

We have a word for that: Lawyers!

Fake it til you make it is good. But, better yet, we figured out you can just keep faking it until some other sucker wants to hold the bag.

On some level they deeply desire for everyone to pay attention to them at all times, and they fear being ignored and irrelevant. Someone like that will struggle to understand that others don't get the same enjoyment out of being watched.

gotta smooth it out somehow

Any live band performing a song is subject to mechanical licensing as much as a recording artist. Typically the venue pays it, just like how radio stations pay royalties. This system exists because historically, that's how music reproduction worked. You hire some musicians to play the music you want to hear. Copyright applied to the score, the lyrics, and so on. The 'mechanical' rights had to come later, because recording hadn't been invented yet!

>Any new system leads to a temporary increase in focus and productivity.

I used to try to be very organized and adopt different systems to do so. Unfortunately due to the variety of things I do, I ended up creating the XKCD "you now have 14 competing standards" problem. My efforts to impose order only created more chaos. I have since just created a big monolithic txt file for notes, and a directory sorted by date modified. Delete old things, rename new things appropriately, and then use proper search tools like Voidtools Everything. When a project is complete, that's when I start organizing it, because that's when I know what it should look like. I don't understand how people can work with inconsistent and constantly changing structure.

I had an issue, but I figured it out. The rhythm is not the same as the one on the wikipedia page - which I was already familiar with. After looking at my recordings I realized I was playing it straight, but the default knock recording has a swing/triplet feel.

straight: DAA DA-DA DA DA, DA DA

swung: DAA DA D-DA DA, DA DA

I hope my highly rigorous notation is helpful here

edit - in hindsight this has nothing to do with your problem

>seminal book

Don't think that we don't see this.

>One could also include the computer's hard drive as addressable memory, in which case it has even more states when viewed as a finite state machine.

If you are creative enough, you can consider the entire physical universe to be memory of your state machine. Just add some sensors. Then it doesn't really seem so controversial to call it unbounded anymore right? Perspective, perspective.

The consequence of user-feedback ranking systems tends to be that content needs to be either novel and attention grabbing, or already popular amongst the user base. Discussion that is niche, or just mildly interesting, is often given less attention than spam and trolling, just because it isn't attention grabbing enough to rise above the noise. The most active users of HN, Reddit, etc. are homogeneous and interchangeable because that is what the environment selects for. More distinct posters and groups exist but regardless of their quality, they will not be able to become more visible (actively engaging with the community) without losing that quality. Obviously, this phenomenon applies to more than just web forums.

  >'petertodd' is a terminal disease that ultimately results in death.
  >'petertodd' has no natural predators because it killed them all.
  >'petertodd' is the 'I' in 'Team'.
  >'petertodd' doesn't get mad, it gets even.
  >'petertodd' doesn't make mistakes. It just has unintended consequences.
  >'petertodd' is the software equivalent of 'Cthulu'.

Holy shit, somebody call Chuck Norris.

>But my theory is that the cell phone is iatrogenic for that purpose.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34762051

Just saw these back to back within an hour or two. I'm speed running baader-meinhof. Or maybe the poster found this article by searching for iatrogenic? Maybe something recently gave the word a spike in popularity? Google trends shows a flat line, and I assume this word is pretty rare. Just made me curious.

On topic: yeah I don't use a cellphone that much either.

and this is why I have to use nitter or invidious to avoid the wrath of the complexity demon

Clearly the software industry is more evil than the FF villains though. Wasted computers are not alive, and yet they WANT them to be sentient.

>Also, I’m envious and have a mimetic desire to model you :)

Well, what is the model then? I would say I roughly understand the sentiment, but if you asked me, I would say that the envy stems from a past positive or negative experience. Being around someone who made you feel "uncool" in comparison, or being perceived as cool and getting recognition.

That's Pavlovian right? You experience an emotion caused by similarities to a past stimulus. Sure, the emotion is triggered by a model of reality. That's pattern recognition though, not "role-modelling." You didn't learn your fear of snakes on TV. That shit's hard wired. (Well, for most people, if you have it. Kind of a weird example because it can be very unconscious. Until you find yourself spontaneously jumping at a garden hose.)

I do think that Burgis' model applies to fad-following behaviour, and does a good job of explaining trend-followers. The example of wearing clothes because you want to look like the model makes sense. Makes sense, but is it true? Do most people experience this? I don't think so. My problem is that you can over apply the theory to situations where there is probably no model, but you can fabricate one if you try hard enough.

Doesn't seem like anyone has posted the bug free implementation so here it is:

  int main(void)
  {
      char the_terminal[] = "Hello World!\n"
      return 0;
  }

>Bookmark this, and come back in 5 years to see how it panned out.

Just like I did with zefrank.com, but that stuff was free!

You might have misinterpreted me. I did not say there was ever singular in-group for the word, aside from the aggregate of all the groups that used it. The point is that the aggregate now includes everyone, and you can not have an in-joke that everyone is in on; that is just a regular joke. So, of course the appeal is lost to the people who enjoyed them for that fact.

But most people like regular jokes, and that's fine. As you suggest, "meme" began as an umbrella term, and various in-jokes will continue to be made, even without a word that specifically describes them.

The popularization of the term took about 20 years, and it looked a bit like an economic bubble: Many confused people, trying to mass produce things that are only valuable due to scarcity. Worse, it's a social phenomenon, rather than economic, so the process has been like watching a joke fly over someone's head a thousand times in slow motion.

There is no in-group anymore. The term "meme" no longer serves as a shibboleth for any particular subculture, and anyone on major social media platforms has seen them and knows what they are. Memes have become the equivalent of grandma's Christmas chain letter. But, of course, this is the true meaning of the term coined by Dawkins. Somewhat fittingly, and a little ironically, we have watched the coded meaning of "meme as in-joke," (an anti-meme to the out-group) become absorbed into the original meaning. The word was a malapropism all along, and people are starting to understand that now.