snooggums

Legally defined as secure, not actually secure.

They are fairly insecure in practice, since they are throwing the data at misdialed numbers and they are frequently placed in shared and insecure locations in the building where lots of people can access whatever comes through.

Going back in time creates the butterfly effect mechanics!

My speculation is that some biological trait improved enough for life to try out all kinds of new things. Maybe a cellular function improved and a little ecological pressure resulted in many different kinds of viable body shapes and behaviors being feasible.

So nothing visible without a lot of scientific instruments and a solid plan for testing.

Nearly everyone has many opportunities they have never taken because they choose not to. How many older people have never

• ridden a motorcycle
• gone fishing
• gone hiking
• knitted
• cooked a complex meal
• gone sailing
• been skydiving
• read a lengthy book series
• played in a local sports league
• coached children
• painted a house
• painted artwork
• sculpted anything
• built a simple things out of wood
• built a complicated thing out of wood
• welded
• taken a canoe/kayak/inner tube down a river
• gone white water rafting
• travel (all kinds!)

All of these things are accessible to the average physically fit person into their 60s. Even the ones that don’t often have special access options for those with disabilities.

But people frequently choose not to try some things because they assume they won’t like them or because of construction concerns, but they also overlook a lot of free or nearly free experiences that they could always try. I haven’t even done all of the things in my example list!

The biggest issue is the need for families to have two incomes to support a houshold. Unemployment would plummet if single incomes for the working class were feasible again,since unemployment is based on looking for employment.

Basically if jobs had living wages and we had universal healthcare we wouldn’t be in this mess.

Not sure how detailed you want to get, but the two that I know of off the top of my head are looking for exoplanets and signs of where humans used to live. Here are a couple of easy reads on the application.

https://blog.tensorflow.org/2019/11/identifying-exoplanets-with-neural.html?m=1

https://www.themirror.com/news/world-news/groundbreaking-ai-uncovers-lost-ancient-945182

Useful medical applications are similar, where the pattern matching can be used to narrow down what to look for, but there is a human step afterwards to verify.

Now I’m sad.

Paying focused attention to your senses, surroundings, and thoughts. Unlike meditation that tries to change how you feel, mindfulness is letting excess thoughts go so you can focus on what happening right now.

Helps when things feel overwhelming and is the only meditation my ADHD self can do.

Aggressive dogs on leashes often pull themselves free or drag their owner close enough to start violence with other people and other dogs. Well behaved dogs tend to avoid confrontation.

It isn’t saying that any dog couldn’t be suddenly aggressive any more than saying any random person couldn’t suddenly become aggressive. Odds are higher that a dog who is frequently aggressive but on a leash getting close enough to bite or scratch than a well behaved one not on a leash.

While I am perfectly fine with the leash laws being enforced, not being on a leash when well behaved isn’t asking for trouble. Leash laws are there to address less well behaved dogs and the fact that it is impossible to know how well behaved a dog is the first time you meet them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_returns

People should queue up when there are more people than things to interact with, and generally they do. I don’t care if someone lets someone with one thing ahead of everyone else as long as it still moves along. I would hate for ad hoc queuing to have enforced rules because doing it ad hoc is better overall and adding rules would make it more cumbersome.

It is required to have dogs on leashes here, but sometimes I see one off leash and if it is well behaved I don’t care. They should be on a leash as a best practice, but leashed dogs that are aggressive are worse than a well behaved but unleashed dog so I let the unleashed and behaved ones slide. The unleashed and aggressive ones are the worst.

There are a lot of things where it is best to do something a certain way in general, but when it doesn’t directly address the underlying issue or there are exceptions then I don’t get upset. Like people should use crosswalks properly, unless there is no traffic and they have no real benefit…

Pretty sure that it is one of those things that does happen rarely, but people tend to assume everyone is doing it as an excuse to dismiss the homeless problem.

If I understand and agree with the reason for being upset, yes.

Like I agree with banning peanuts on airlines because of allergy issues and think people who are upset about that are wrong so their being upset doesn’t impact me at all. Although I am not able to have an abortion, seeing people being upset that their rights are being denied does make me upset as well.

Then there are tons of things I either can’t relate to or understand and I don’t really care either way. There are lots of things I think people should choose to do voluntarily, but don’t want it to be required. I don’t get upset when I see people not do those things, even though they really should.

If I have seen it less than about a hundred times, it is a 5. I will have some key words that let me describe it successfully to other people, but I can’t actually picture it.

If I have seen it fairly regularly for a few years, or haven’t seen it for several years, probably a 4.

If I have seen it for decades, it might be a 3. Apples, which I see at least every few days is a 3.

I have an internal narrator that doesn’t sound like a specific voice that is like a pseudo auditory representation of my thoughts. This mostly applies to reading or troubleshooting where I’m consciously working through stuff. It also means that something which stands out as incorrect is massively annoying, like people confusing lose and loose because I ‘hear’ it. Homophones are fine!

I can’t really picture things unless it is something I have seen many, many times. So no picturing something in my mind that I haven’t seen before. Most things I have seen before are mostly vague ideas and with minimal detail. Like I know a baseball has the stitching and it curves in a certain way, but probably couldn’t draw it. I know what my wife’s face looks like, but can’t quite picture it in my head because I don’t look at a singular photo of her over and over.

But I can hold relational information like many to one combinations and 3d space relative positioning but without the ability to see it. So I can generally figure out if things will fit together even though I can’t really ‘see’ them, I know they fill a certain volume relative to other things of a similar volume and that is generally good enough. Most things are measured relative to each other now that I’m thinking about it.

There are a massive number of scientific research and other pattern matching positive uses that all involve using the AI to help narrow down what to focus on. All of those use AI as a way to filter and group information, not as the end result like the current trend is for the AI being shoved into everything.

Heck, there are some positive uses that could be made with the right guardrails like as a supplemental tool when learning a language (with an educator for oversight!) or as a natural language output for something that is created through an algorithm that returns accurate results.

Mainly, the exact opposite of what is being forced on everyone right now which is inaccurate slop that is full of errors but presented as reliable and helpful.

Or when popping popcorn and it stops popping.

That is the 85% under some circumstances.

The 15% are religious nuts who believe that if a mother dies during childbirth then it was God’s will.

“If she dies it was God’s will.”

-the 15%

Are you saying it is a manipulated prompt that caused Grok to return the text out of context or that multiple users all fabricated screenshots of a sequence of holocaust denial talking points as if they were returned by Grok?

Edit: Also, the screenshots are from May and there is a common trend with AI being changed to avoid reported scenarios without acknowledging that they made a change.

Now it is obviously set up to manually include refutations of the deniers within the results, which is an obvious attempt to address the type of results returned in the screenshots. So they ‘fixed’ this one specific scenario in a way that strongly supports the screenshots as being real at the time they were taken even if something was snipped out.

Playing whack a mole with how misinformation is presented is shit design.