You know this is the good shit because when it first came out a few years back google was running a huge disinformation campaign against it. You'd search for "adnauseum" in google and the first result would be an article from some weird advertising company calling is "insecure" and "malware" without any actual argumentation behind those claims, while no other search engine returned that article (I lost the screenshots, so yall are just gonna have to take my word for it). They also delisted it from the chrome store for not discernible reason. They were afraid.

But nowadays I'm willing to bet that they figured out how to detect adnauseum's fake clicks and filtering it out. Stuff like that needs a talented development team to keep it up to date.

If you actually read the post, she's not "blasting" her husband. She's seeing him be perfectly content without chasing all those markers of career success, and questioning why she cannot do the same. She's realising that she relies on external validation to feel happy, and that that's not a good thing.

Interesting how these types of people seem to have a set of phrases with their own fixed meanings that don't necessarily correspond to the literal meanings of the words that make them up. "Can't trust the government" in this context really means "can't trust liberals/progressives". You can see that in her response if you watch the video. She's not stumped when the reporter points out the apparent contradiction. She expect everyone to make the same mental substitution, under which there is no contradiction.

Another good example is a 5 minute youtube video about homelessness from a fake university with an orange logo. They cite an example of a bridge between Los Angeles and Culver City that has a major homeless encampment on one side, but not the other, due to different laws in the two cities. To quote directly:

the Los Angeles side is full of tents and the Culver City side is empty. Why? Because the two cities have different public policies. Los Angeles has effectively decriminalized public camping and drug consumption while Culver City enforces the law.

If Los Angeles has no law against homelessness, then what law is it supposedly failing to enforce? This seems like a contradiction, until you realize that "Culver City enforces the law" has nothing to do with actual laws, but with the "law" of the moral framework that the authors are trying to propagandize.

This sounds like a great thing for deaf people and just in general, but I don't think AI will ever replace anime fansub makers who have no problem throwing a wall of text on screen for a split second just to explain an obscure untranslatable pun.

This is good advice, but I really wish we lived in a world where consumers could bond together and get laws passed that make this type of crap illegal so that buying TV's (or any type of appliance for that matter) didn't involve having to do research on weird non-consumer hardware just to have a nice experience.

EDIT: some morons in my replies keep on saying shit about "voting republican" and We Do In OtHeR CoUnTRiEs. I'm not american, I don't live in america, and I cannot remember the last time I set foot in america. Shut the fuck up, nobody asked you.

Can't believe nobody has linked the relevant xkcd yet

So...

• normal people are scared because they fall for the gambler's fallacy,
• mathematician is feeling fine because a 50% chance is a 50% chance,
• and the scientist is feeling extra fine because the experimental data shows that the surgery is actually safer than 50%

Did I get it right?

Unpopular opinion: dead internet is not only real, but GOOD. Once robots get good enough to autonomously sign up for websites and make convincing posts, this will force us humans to go actually outside, make friends, form deep social relationship, and build lasting, resilient communities. Meanwhile on the internet, websites that are willing to allow AI content for money will eventually die out due to lack of actual users. The only remaining websites will be run by individuals and organizations with non-profit motives, and a strict human-only policy with verification based on word-of-mouth / invite system.

There's something so on-the-nose about having "with ads" as part of a subscription tier's official name. For decades companies have been coming up with euphemisms for their low-cost services (e.g. "economy class" on airlines, "community edition" for freemium software). But now here we are with Disney pretty much saying "Go watch ads you poor bitch". It's the death of a euphemism. They're selling a crappy service, and they aren't afraid to say it.

Obligatory shilling for unar, I love that little fucker so much

• Single command to handle uncompressing nearly all formats.
• No obscure flags to remember, just unar <yourfile>
• Makes sure output is always contained in a directory
• Correctly handles weird japanese zip files with SHIFT-JIS filename encoding, even when standard unzip doesn't

I find that a large number of conspiracy theories are asking the right questions, just not providing the right answers. Does big tech want to control our minds with 5G towers and microchips hidden in covid vaccines? Probably not. Does big tech want to control our minds with social media and invasive advertising? Absolutely. Is the world controlled by a secret society of lizard people? Probably not. Is the world controlled by a not-so-secret society of billionaires and politicians? To a large extent. Even those awful racist or bigoted conspiracy theories start to sound somewhat ~~palpable~~ palatable if you filter out the racist or bigoted part. Do Jews make life for the rest of us miserable by controlling the economy? No. But replace "Jews" with "the owning class", and suddenly it kind of makes sense.

EDIT: Is the government putting chemicals in the water that turn frogs gay? No. Are corporations putting chemicals in water bottles that turn frogs into hermaphrodites? Literally yes

EDIT PART TWO - ELECTRIC BOOGALOO: Palatable, not palpable. Words are hard.

A technology that was made To Stop Criminals™ being used against a political whistleblower? Color me surprised! (thanks for sharing the link btw, didn't know about that)