Of course! How else am I going to play a video while I’m word processing?

Well, how’s his wife holding up?

You’re going to AI hell for this!

AI hell is just pictures of busses and motorcycles and wiggly letters and numbers.

No no, not whatever flavor. Just the one. The others are crazy!

I mean… the vegetables in the store are corpses. They were plants, and then they were cut away, and now they’re dying.

You might as well say “I bet the chicken breast feels so snug in its vacuum-sealed styrofoam tray thing”. And I bet some of you would 😛

I’m not saying don’t anthropomorphize stuff, and I’m not saying there can’t be whimsy, I love the whimsy! But in this case the lettuce was alive, but the lettuce under the mister isn’t. That’s why they’re misting it.

“Listen, who among us can honestly say they haven’t raped a young woman? Right?”

I felt for your struggle, and while I’m not a professional photo-retoucher, I was compelled to try use my meagre skills to help.

I hope this gives you peace.

I guess Jim Jordan has more faith in Democrats than I do…

I had a cat named Orion that looked almost exactly like that, except he was very old and died in 2013, so it’s probably not the same one. But it could be that you have a second gen model. If so, you’ve got a great cat ahead of you! Just be aware that 15 years in he starts misunderstanding what it means to really use a liter box; his heart’s in the right place… it’s just that his hindquarters aren’t…

I guarantee there’s a word nerd that’s got that one loaded up, but alas, it is beyond my gift. And I’m certainly not going to look it up, as that would be cheating 😛

Seems reasonable to me that it’s a network effect. Hating gay people is a thing their community does, so they do it to fit in with the community, at first, and then it becomes part of who they are after they’ve done it for a while. Their “culture” in a sense. But if their community sees them as gay, or gay enough, they’ll be targeted by their own discrimination and lose their community and be outside the pack, which is what they actually fear. And if one of their friends starts getting too close to gay, they may have to hate them and cut them loose just to make sure the target doesn’t spread by association and cause people to start hating both of them.

As acceptance of gay stuff increases, they see their community shrinking. Their “culture” has fewer and fewer people, which means their pack is getting smaller, and all they want with all their hearts is to be firmly in the biggest safest strongest group. So their group gets smaller, but can they change? Can they just give up hating at this age? Can they honestly see themselves forming community with those people? They still have some people in their community, the ones closest to them, that they’d still have to give up if they changed. Maybe their uncle and brother and mom, people important to them, and so as uncomfortable it is to be on a shrinking island, they’d rather that than to be alone with no one they knew. So they keep fighting, but with a new discomfort, the knowledge that they’re fighting for a losing side.

This makes them all the more dangerous, as they’re more willing to do anything to overcome their worsening odds…

Proposal with no data: "how [did/does it] come [to be this way]“

Sure, but there can be some downsides to chronological order. I mean, right off the bat we need to know chronological order of what, because the firehose is all chaff no wheat. So maybe it’s firehose of only people I’ve followed, which means I’ll never discover anyone new, but maybe that’s okay for my goals.

But it also suffers from a starvation problem where if I have a friend that posts once a day, and a few friends and/or public figures or whatever that post many times an hour, I’ll probably never ever see what my quiet friend has to say because it’ll be lost in the noise.

And I’m sure some of you could say that’s my fault for following noisy accounts, but just because I want to see their things sometimes it doesn’t mean I only want to see their things. There’s room for an algorithm to skew rare-but-personal things above noisy-public-things without it being evil.

And then with something like Lemmy that’s kinda nuts because there’s lots and lots of stuff posted, and probably most of it is poo, and so I find “top 12 hours” or something to be much more value for effort, but that’s not chronological anymore.

I did actually! But each of those used an algorithm to decide which things to show people based on their query. They must, because they couldn’t show everything.

So since they must choose “an algorithm” in the computer science sense, but not “the algorithm” in the pop reporting sense, the question becomes “which algorithms are the algorithm”, or more specifically which features are the actual problem.

Is it statistics? Is it personalization? Is it advertiser influence? That’s the question that’s interesting to me.

Right, I know they do. But “easily checkable” wasn’t our criteria before, this is a different criteria.

Is the criteria just that any algorithm that is transparent is okay? If there was a recommendation system that used your data, but the way they used it was open source, would that be “not an algorithm”? Because that’s also an option, but it’s a different option from this thread’s previous proposal that it be followers only or whatever.

I’m not really advocating for any particular choice here, I’m just saying that if they’re going to make a law around picking which algorithms are okay and which aren’t, they are going to need to figure out where those lines are, and I think that’s going to be harder than the buzzword makes it seem.

Chosen as in “subscriptions” / “followed” / “friends”?

So if it picks from among accounts you’ve opted-in to then it’s not the bad algorithm? That’s not meant as a gotcha, it’s a choice one could make to draw the line, but I don’t know if it’s the one they had in mind. There’s still room there to pick which order it shows your selected things in, but maybe that still mitigates the harm.

Does TikTok have the concept of following or subscribing? I don’t even know…

Things like Lemmy are a little trickier because our model is different. I can subscribe to a community, but then the content in that community is posted by strangers, and then those posts have comments by strangers, all of which require some kind of algorithm to curate. So in this definition showing me strangers shitposts is “no algorithm” if I’m subscribed to the shitpost community, but it isn’t allowed to suggest a shitpost if I’m not in that community?

It’s a line that could be drawn, but it remains to be seen if that’s the line they have in their minds.

I didn’t see from the article if they have a definition of “the algorithm” that means anything?

Like, I know this is preaching to the choir here of all places, but you literally can’t have a social media without “an algorithm”, but I think we all know that’s not what they mean. But what actually do they mean? Do they mean “showing things from people you haven’t followed or subscribed to”, do they mean “showing posts or videos with stats that make them think you’ll like it”? Do they mean any selection algorithm that’s personalized to your account rather than site wide? So you could still have “top of the last 12 hours”, but everyone would have the same top?

Because every platform has more content on it per day than any human could consume that day. Something somewhere must choose what to show you and what order it’s in, because it can’t show everything. So I’m curious how they’ll define what “the algorithm” is…

Was the warning “everything is going according the plan, sir”?

As a person from Ontario, this is dumb. Like, not as dumb as renaming it, obviously, but just ignore the turd. I don’t need a sign affirming the name of the lake. I hope it wasn’t expensive, but knowing Ford I’m sure it was made by one of his buddy’s companies at 10x the price, charged to the taxpayer.

Could you prepare to, like, not let him do that? That would be best.

Sincerely, The World