No, no. I’m referring specifically to you.

Nobody likes a propagandist.

Less so when it’s low effort.

Yeah, the guy’s team was writing “articles and blog posts promoting a tech company”.

Letting an LLM mangle that isn’t exactly a huge loss.

Not really.

If you have a male antagonist, your movie fails the test unless you have a specific scene where you sideline two of your female characters to talk about something other than the plot.

Similarly, if the story has an ensemble that features any male characters you need to contrive a way to get rid of them for one scene just to check an arbitrary box.

Using this as anything other than a thought experiment ensures that once per story female characters will be demoted to side characters featuring in a meaningless dialogue scene.

Not to mention that under US law black powder guns are not legally considered firearms.

While that’s technically a loophole, it’s left in place to allow poor people in rural areas to supplement their food budget with hunting even if they have a felony conviction.

Parent here. It’s always the parents. The biggest problems with young people are typically caused by lack of parental involvement and are next to impossible for schools or society at large to solve.

The catch is that any public figure or institution saying that out loud is more or less committing suicide. Just like I’m about to be roasted alive on here for saying it.

Shitty, inattentive parents do not want to hear that they need to do better. Parents who didn’t plan ahead and just shove their kid in daycare don’t want to hear that they should have moved to a cheaper metropolitan area so they could work less and spend more time raising their kids. Parents who went off half cocked and had kids in unstable relationships don’t want to hear that they shouldn’t have done that knowing they wouldn’t be able to stay together in the long term.

Nobody is allowed to say that out loud, you have to read between the lines.

The typos started at the precise moment your mind was blown.

Please don’t change them.

Holy shit. I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.

Want people to like Lemmy? Turn down the rhetoric.

Want to scare people off? Stay at eleven.

Your call. I’m out.

You want a direct answer? Fine, you asked for it.

You’re the problem with Lemmy. You and other wild-eyed, foaming-at-the-mouth political zealots.

If you introduce me to a carbon copy of myself - one that agrees with every single opinion that I have - but he had even a fraction of the zeal and obsession that I see here I would be running for the hills.

It’s off-putting and downright terrifying to see evidence that people capable of such obsession exist outside of asylums.

Ladies and gentlemen, exhibit A.

If the first words out of your mouth in the morning are “I hate (insert just about anything here)” ya might have a problem.

Anybody seeing this who’s a big Lemmy booster/advocate pay close attention to OP.

Lemmy’s problem isn’t the software, or the servers, or even a lack of content. The thing holding Lemmy back is the people.

Power tripping mods and just fucking intolerable users are actively turning off new users from the start. If you want Lemmy to grow, don’t tolerate the bad behavior.

I am outraged that - let me check my notes - the EIC of The Verge has published an article partially generated by AI.

It really isn’t for her own good.

If your vet told you it was OK to cut her hair unnecessarily you need to find a new vet.

And then everyone clapped

Human beings are really bad at understanding statistics. Generally crime is trending down in the long term. Statistically, the world is a much safer place when it comes to interpersonal violence.

These facts are harder for us to grasp than the flashy, shocking “if it bleeds, it leads” news story. People’s anecdotal knowledge of the world tends to beat out the statistics we read when we shape our perspective of the world. That leads to frequent mismatches between what people believe the world is like and what the world is actually like.

A prime example of this is the “stranger danger” public awareness campaign in the US. The effort encouraged parents to be wary of strangers that may abduct their child. The problem is that the vast and overwhelming majority of child abductions are perpetrated by family members or by individuals known to the family - not strangers.

Across the US the “anecdotal” event of being frightened by a stranger danger TV ad had a strong impact on the perceptions of many parents. A lot of those people continued to believe that the greatest risk of kidnapping came from strangers even after the (correct) contradictory statistics became widely publicized. Similarly, these “stop crime” ads can frighten people just a little bit at imagining the scenario they describe. This experience can shape perception in a large and lasting way and make people perceive the problem as being more prevalent than it is.

People here are the worst.

It’S a TrAdiTiOn.

It’s like nobody here knows to just cut bait when they get called out for saying stupid shit. 100% of the time the reaction is to double down on the stupid.

Oh BOY are you in for a treat!

Relatively new parent here. I regret to inform you that your hypothesis is incorrect, at least for my kid. He’s still an infant, though and I don’t know if you include kids under 1 in “small children”.

My wife and I only use our phones to track his nap times, take a picture of him occasionally (once a week or so), and make phone calls. He is still magnetically attracted to them. If you leave one sitting on a surface he can reach he will go for it and start trying to get it to light up on the lock screen. This is especially frustrating for my wife and I as we intend to restrict screen time as much as possible through early childhood.

Even removing social pressures and constructs around phones they are little boxes with moving lights on one side that respond to your touch. That’s inherently interesting to children even before they can meaningfully interpret writing or abstract images.

You wouldn’t download a car computer.