timang.us
https://timang.us
478 posts
146 followers
219 following
Getting Started
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Of course, the 4D chess conspiracy angle of this whole thing is that none of this is real, they're still besties, and they're deliberately orchestrating a public spat for... reasons unknown.
Seems unlikely though, given the narcissistic tendencies that they both regularly display.
comment in response to
post
Many of them must be very conflicted. Like, their parents just got divorced.
comment in response to
post
🫣🍿😬
comment in response to
post
Small mercies. Although, that they are both in control of massive rockets is probably suboptimal.
comment in response to
post
What do I win? Actually nothing, we all lose.
comment in response to
post
At the very least it's an extremely (and presumably deliberately) provocative means of criticism.
comment in response to
post
"Going forward, I wish virtual reality was developed further with basically unlimited funding"... *monkey paw curls*
comment in response to
post
Hopefully the replies are also bots.
comment in response to
post
I'm so sick of hearing UK MPs (usually not on the left) talking about DEI.
comment in response to
post
Yup, Twitter is shit. Meanwhile on here you have the usual bunch of engagment-bait twats doling out the tired "look how they say it's not terrorism if it's a white person" line. Sigh.
comment in response to
post
Reminds me of the vote share plot in Pennsylvania in the closing stages of the 2020 US election:
comment in response to
post
Or even "intelligence"...
comment in response to
post
Not enough is made of how relatively well the UK is doing in this front; even on overcast and still days, the renewables mix is impressively high. Still more to do, but great progress.
comment in response to
post
No I was just speaking theoretically, i.e. that translating an instruction set into equivalent human readable text is possible without using an LLM. But lots of work obviously, and, as I say, would miss nuance such as recognising that a seemingly random constant is a bit mask for ASCII characters.
comment in response to
post
Cons:
1. Excessive energy use.
2. Might not always be freely accessible.
3. Might not be accurate.
4. Could probably be mostly performed by a "human readable text" disassembler.
Pros:
1. "Easy" to implement.
2. Potentially very useful.
3. Likely to capture more nuance than Con 4 could.
comment in response to
post
A polite and respectful conversation, yes. I think your garden and everyone else involved here will benefit from this decision, to be honest.
comment in response to
post
I genuinely don't understand what you hope to get out of this interaction.
comment in response to
post
Being a patronising twat is typically not a good way to elicit a response, if that's what you're after.
comment in response to
post
Like I said, round in circles.
comment in response to
post
Right? It's so strange.
comment in response to
post
I think we've reached the end of the line here and are going round in circles, but I will quote Wikipedia to you:
"Quotation marks[A] are punctuation marks used in pairs in various writing systems to identify direct speech, a quotation, or a phrase."
comment in response to
post
I mean fair enough, if so but that's very cynical, and I say that as a British person whose natural inclination is one of cynicism.
comment in response to
post
On the other hand, you appear to be saying that if you see quotes in a headline, regardless of publication, your default interpretation is that is either an expression of scepticism of said quote's veracity or an attempt to distance the publication from the quoted person?
comment in response to
post
It's not so much that it's a particular news outlet that I'm confident in, it's that as a general rule, if I read a quote in a headline in a serious publication, I'm going to interpret it literally as a quotation, by default.
comment in response to
post
Because the Daily Mail is prone to alarmist scare quotes style headline bait, whereas the FT is not.
I'm not claiming that scare quotes are not a thing, by the way, I'm just amazed that this appears to be your default interpretation for what is, to my mind, a straightforwardly factual headline.
comment in response to
post
Perhaps if it was a headline in the aforementioned Daily Mail I might see where you were coming from, but that barely qualifies as journalism in the first place, so it's a moot point really.
comment in response to
post
It's not a question of hard, I just that I take the headline literally as a quote, whereas you guys seem to think there is a implicit subtext, which would a) be *highly* unusual for the FT and b) again, if you actually read the article, it's clear is not the case.
comment in response to
post
The British press is well known for printing absolute bollocks as and when it pleases, with little recourse, for what it's worth.
comment in response to
post
Bill Gates accuses Elon Musk of "killing the world’s poorest children" with USAID cuts
Is it any different with a longer quote or do you read that in the same way? Genuinely I find your interpretation completely mystifying.
comment in response to
post
The FT is not a outfit that is particularly prone to being opinionated though, and if you read the article it's clear that it's not an opinion piece.
comment in response to
post
It's possible this is a transatlantic point of difference.
comment in response to
post
I think you're "overthinking" this and should probably just "read" the "article".
comment in response to
post
The first and third are accurate quotes, the second is not, the last is a statement of fact. Quotes are not meant as a means of emphasis, if that is what you're implying, and if that is what you understand the headline to mean, you're interpreting it wrong.
comment in response to
post
Unless of course you're saying they are scare quotes, which is not something I think the FT of all publications would reduce itself to, and besides if you read the article that is clearly not their intention.
comment in response to
post
It really isn't. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotati...
comment in response to
post
That's... not what quotes mean.
comment in response to
post
Because he said "killing"?
comment in response to
post
Quote marks mean that that was what the person said though?
comment in response to
post
I don't think the Daily Mail qualifies as news, to be fair.
comment in response to
post
It depends on where you live and how/from where you consume your news, but in my experience I absolutely do hear them say that.
comment in response to
post
It depends on your particular definition of populism, but if you count the typical SNP rhetoric of "the [Scottish] people's struggle against the [Westminster] establishment", then it's definitely populist.
c.f UKIP/Reform's "the [British] people's struggle against the [Brussels] establishment".
comment in response to
post
That being "my populism is better than your populism"?