FriendOfDeSoto

[Icey breath] No.

I can see dead people.

I think the telephone sort of fits. It’s attributed to Bell but that’s mainly because he wiggled his way into a US patent before his competition. The telephone has many fathers though: Bourseul, Manzetti, Reis - just to name three. The latter is also the father of the word telephone but died before it took off. There were many engineers tinkering so if Bell hadn’t taken the crown, another person would have done it.

Bonus answer: penicillin. Alexander Flemming. A lucky, accidental discovery. If mold hadn’t gotten sloppily into his cultures we might all have died of the plague or something nice like that.

Trusting judges is not uniquely American. You’ll find similar processes on the continent across the channel. The hurdles of who can sue and under which circumstances may differ. The appointment of judges is often less politicized. I think the UK is the unique case here and I believe that’s because by and large there isn’t a written constitution, at the very least not in the same way as in the US or France or Poland. Supreme courts are there as a check on whether or not laws conform to constitutional values and have the power to overrule a legislature when it passes laws that don’t. It’s not an “upper hand” deal, it’s checks and balances.

The American legal system is not great. I don’t know the details of the case you mentioned. One bad decision doesn’t mean the whole system needs to be abolished. If that were so I’d like to have a word with the UK’s highest court on what constitutes a woman.

Which part is infuriating here? The law that will be difficult to enforce and probably has all sorts of unintended side effects? Or that lawyers, and indeed layers funded by big internet companies, are suing?

Fundamentally, let them sue. Not everything coming out of the legislatures the world over is pristine law and this is how the system can correct for mistakes. Also, I’m sadly more on the side of the Googles and the Metas. Their freedom of speech argument is entirely self serving but that doesn’t make it wrong. Any age verification has itself a chilling effect on speech online. Forcing it creates more data sets to be leaked and hacked and in this case of minors’ information, not grownups’ who can make an educated decision if they want to go through with it to go watch porn. This is not a clear case of mild infuriation.

Limited and generalizing.

In your example, I think this is a defense mechanism more than anything. People deal with grief of separation in different ways. This looks dumb on the surface but it’s like burning your hand on the stove. You only need to do it once to be fearful of and therefore extra careful with all stoves. Person who likes blue and broke their heart = stove.

Apple was the first big aggregator with then iTunes. Spotify is the biggest streamer that also hosts podcasts. I suppose it helped highlighting the ease of subscribing through these services to get subscribers.

I absolutely hate this triad of “you can find us on [insert propriatory source like Spotify], Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.” The last third includes the two preceding ones. Both Spotify or Apple are places where one can find podcasts. It is illogical to say it like that and I find it annoying. I don’t think it is necessary to remind people any more how podcasts work in 2025. They will find you. Stop giving free ads to other services. Especially services that have proven to be hostile to the open RSS architecture, like Spotify.

My preference is simple:

Minimalist Lemmy - ordered by new, chronological (used to be the same on reddit before I stopped) Mastodon - chronological

If I look at how the algorithms on YouTube or Instagram (don’t know which category they fall in) treat me, they always surface 80% irrelevant stuff and 20% that is okay but only in the rarest cases mindblowingly good. And that’s why on YouTube I tend to ignore the Home tab.

Especially in the short video algorithms, I fucking hate that if you didn’t respond within a microsecond you’ll now get fed sloth videos or car crashes until you die. I’m all algorithm’ed out.

It remains to be seen if reading about all the emotions and morals is the same as feeling them, acting according to them, or just being able to identify them in us meatbags. So even with the sum total of human knowledge at their disposal, this may not matter. We already don’t know how these models actually organize their “knowledge.” We can feed them and we can correct bad outcomes. Beyond that it is a black box, at least right now. So if the spark from statistical spellchecker (current so-called AI) to actual AI (or AGI) happens, we’ll probably not even notice until it writes us a literary classic of Shakespearean proportions or until it turns us into fuel for its paperclip factory. That’s my assessment anyway.

Groundhog Day

That’s a matter of opinion. I suspect a big university like that quickly spends its budget and does way more than compile a dictionary. And if spelling is all you need, that still appears to be possible in front of the paywall.

For the longest time, it wasn’t free of charge. You had to buy expensive books. I fail to see a justification for the outrage. Also considering that this thread is rife with suggestions for alternatives and more dodgy solutions.

They aren’t under any obligation to provide the fruit of their labour free of charge.

As far as I can see their subscription prices have also only gone up over the years. Why? Do you think a Mr Burns like figure is sitting behind the scenes asking Smithers to relese the hounds? Or because running the linguistic operation, the database, and a website that people all over the world look at as the de facto authority of the language and gets queried thousands of times per day just cost shitloads of money? And they no longer get enough funding another way?

Did they ever put ads on their website? Do you run uBlock or similar plugins on your browser?

I mean, they have to pay the bills somehow. And this shows maybe how bad financially they’re off. Before the internet, you had to buy a copy of the book. I suspect those sales fell off a cliff in the last 25 years. So I may not like this decision but I can understand it.

And as others have suggested, there are other ways to get what you need online. This is a strong atmospheric disturbance in a serving vessel for hot infused beverages.

That’s conventional wisdom for lithium ion batteries. Keeping it between 20 and 80 percent will extend its life. But that doesn’t mean charging or discharging it fully will be bad immediately; the effects are small but cumulative. And while battery tech improves, this guideline will probably be less important.

I would prefer buyer or customer. Not Consumer.

If I could just quickly split this hair: there is a semantic difference. The buyer or customer paid money. The consumer needn’t have. If I buy my kid a Switch 2 I’m the buyer and my kid is the consumer.

I don’t disagree with your take that it gets overused though.

Bert and Ernie

I agree. And I think your idea of personal exchanges is something we should try. All I’m saying is that it’s too early for anyone to have a well thought through, working solution.

At different points in the past, we thought novels, newspapers, radio, television, and the internet would be the end of truth. Truth is still around. We develop systems to sieve through the bullshit. In terms of slop, I don’t think anyone can say for sure how we will deal with it. But if past experience is anything to go by, it will rely on reputation. You trust a certain news source because they have been reliable, so they have a reputation they don’t want to lose. And that keeps them honest or you move on. We will find a way to deal with slop as well that will be based on reputation. In addition to laws and regulations that are yet to be written.

Whether it’s news rooms or TikTubers or something completely new that will gain this reputation, eff knows. But we will get there.

What’s the point of doing something by executive order that will probably be reversed on day 1 of the next administration? A better way is to go through Congress whose legislation is harder to be overturned. So your hypothetical president should lead an effort to find compromise across the aisle. Currently, a fucking budget would be nice.

Given the limited power of the president, I fail to see anything more useful this particular president could do.