You can have me em dashes when you pry them from my cold, dead hands. This looks like AI for actual reasons, not meme reasons, and em dashes as a sign of LLM usage is pretty outdated at this point; most AI-brained people have their system prompts set up to tell the models not to use them.
The point of it is being able to play online with friends running the official version of the game on mobile or consoles. That means you need Bedrock Edition. If you don't care about multiplayer or your friends all play on computer, then you should probably use Java Edition, which is natively available on Linux anyway.
Also, Pi Edition is thirteen years old and was massively hobbled from the main production version back when it was new, so if you want a free Minecraft experience, you're better off using Luanti.
Oh no, this is well-attested. Now, would Obama definitely not have been elected without Seven of Nine? Unclear. But that was definitely a contributing factor.
The success of the TNG episode "Conspiracy" (the one with the parasites that take over Starfleet) led, through a strange chain of events, to the election of President Barack Obama.
So, "Conspiracy" was aired in 1988 and was very well-received. It had been intended as the introduction of an insectoid race to replace the Ferengi as the "big bads" of TNG. A cliffhanger laid the groundwork for the idea: the insect race would essentially "assimilate" crews and be overall very scary.
But when they started working on a continuation of the story (a story which would eventually become "Q Who"), they ran into a problem: on a 1989 budget, there's no way they could realistically show humanoid insect aliens scary enough to be the series villains. Sticking random googies and jimjaws to people's faces was a lot cheaper, so the Borg were born, and they were an immediate hit.
Now we need to jump ahead eight years to the release of Voyager's season 3 episode "Unity." Producer Brannon Braga apparently saw a TV promo for this episode, and decided that Voyager needed a Borg crewperson, a decision which would eventually result in Jennifer Lien being fired from the production and a new cast member being hired.
The actress they hired for the role of Seven of Nine, Jeri Ryan, was married to Illinois politician Jack Ryan, but their marriage was apparently on the rocks already when she was cast, and they were divorced in 1999.
Then, Jack Ryan (a Republican) decided that he wanted to run for Senate in 2004. An investigation by Illinois journalists led to the unsealing of the Ryans' divorce settlement, which detailed some... let's say Republican-unfriendly sexual preferences, as well as some sexual abuse perpetrated toward Jeri. He dropped out with only four months until the election, and his replacement never stood a chance. Which meant that Democratic challenger Barack Obama, who had already been favored, dominated the Republican competition dramatically. This blowout led to some very glowing news coverage for Obama, which started him on his meteoric rise to the presidency only four years later.
The other two answers are excellent: only a human can teach anyone how to be a human, and AIs are structurally incapable of understanding any concept sufficiently to teach it.
I might further add: the current structure of AI as a wholly for-profit enterprise adds a level of cynicism and a susceptibility to corruption that even a for-profit human educator is not subject to; that is to say, do we want any corporation (really, any single entity) to be responsible, not only for the structure of education, but for its entire expression?
Even if a hypothetical perfect AI were completely benevolent, and owned by the people, it would still represent a bottleneck of thought and idea that would heterogenize our society. But we don't live in that world, so it's almost a certainty that education would be for sale to the highest bidder. You think historical revisionism is bad now? What if BMW could pay OpenAI to downplay the role of Germany in World War II?
It suggests that it would. It is suggesting that the quality of the models' ability to correctly understand a fast food order indicates its fitness to be used in teaching, but I would say that even a model which can flawlessly take a cheeseburger order—even a model which can flawlessly mimic the action of teaching—wouldn't be appropriate for the task. The quality of its output is unrelated to its fitness to the purpose.
I feel like, back in the day, they used to say "in theaters September 9th," which basically meant "[this movie will be] in theaters [starting on] September 9th." But then with the rise of streaming they wanted to make clear that the movie would not be released on streaming initially, so they awkwardly tagged an "only" to the beginning of the statement. You're right that the "only" was meant to modify "in theaters," and not the date, but I don't remember that construction independently before streaming.
Why on earth would I not believe you? Nobody legitimately makes the distinction unless it's ambiguous, and to Trump's tapioca pudding brain, it's far from ambiguous because the US dollar is the only dollar that exists.
This is a weird attempt at a gotcha, when the reality is that he has no intention of fulfilling this promise and no intention of justifying his failure to do so. If the GOP retains control of the legislative branch, the checks will never be mentioned again.
If you cannot get the right burger from an Al customer service bot, it is not an appropriate tool for education, tutoring, or any other high-stakes task.
It's not an appropriate tool for those things, no. But this is a fallacious statement. These companies are not utilizing good AI models in their drive through software, they're using the cheapest, most bare-minimum models they can possibly get their hands on. But even if they use good models and do solve AI food ordering, even if they do manage to make it as good as a human for the task, it will still not be an appropriate tool for education or tutoring.
A person who is smarter than Donald Trump might say, well, it's intended to be read as (The Donald J. Trump) and (The John F. Kennedy Memorial) Center for the Performing Arts. That is to say, the "memorial" only modifies Kennedy. Of course, in actuality, he just wanted to do it as cheap and fast as possible, so he never put even that much thought into what "memorial" meant before slapping his stupid name on the building, but since it's a toilet I'm assuming that the person doing this joke is smart enough to know...?
To be clear, I'm in my 40s. As far as I'm concerned, my years have been way too complex to classify any single one of them as the "worst." I'm talking about internet reactionary doomerism, which keeps on proclaiming every single year as "the worst year ever," since 2011 but especially since 2016. It seems like our culture at large should stop making such huge, binary statements like that. Some years can just be bad, or decent, or good. They don't all have to be (and can't all actually be) the best or worst; and you probably won't be able to identify the actual peaks or valleys until you're able to look back on them with some greater perspective anyway.
Oh man, you don't? I remember the Mayan calendar 2012 thing, and how at the end of 2011 people were like "maybe it'd be better if the world did end next year." And then at the end of 2016, I think largely with the run-up to and fallout from the election in the US, people were posting stuff like "hey don't say 2017 is gonna be your year, we don't need to tempt fate like that, just be really quiet and make no sudden moves." We're around the same age, so I dunno, maybe I was just too online then.
2011 was the first year I remember that kind of doomerism around New Year's Eve. I feel like I remember 2012-2015 being pretty normal, but then it got super amped up in 2016 (understandably) and we haven't really had a "normal" (non-doomish) New Year's since.
I remember when 2016 was the "worst year ever." And before that, when 2011 was the "worst year ever." I feel like we should hold off on calling a nadir until we start heading back up.
You can have me em dashes when you pry them from my cold, dead hands. This looks like AI for actual reasons, not meme reasons, and em dashes as a sign of LLM usage is pretty outdated at this point; most AI-brained people have their system prompts set up to tell the models not to use them.
The point of it is being able to play online with friends running the official version of the game on mobile or consoles. That means you need Bedrock Edition. If you don't care about multiplayer or your friends all play on computer, then you should probably use Java Edition, which is natively available on Linux anyway.
Also, Pi Edition is thirteen years old and was massively hobbled from the main production version back when it was new, so if you want a free Minecraft experience, you're better off using Luanti.
Oh no, this is well-attested. Now, would Obama definitely not have been elected without Seven of Nine? Unclear. But that was definitely a contributing factor.
Ehhhh, I think there's a simpler explanation: educated people tend to vote Democrat.
The success of the TNG episode "Conspiracy" (the one with the parasites that take over Starfleet) led, through a strange chain of events, to the election of President Barack Obama.
So, "Conspiracy" was aired in 1988 and was very well-received. It had been intended as the introduction of an insectoid race to replace the Ferengi as the "big bads" of TNG. A cliffhanger laid the groundwork for the idea: the insect race would essentially "assimilate" crews and be overall very scary.
But when they started working on a continuation of the story (a story which would eventually become "Q Who"), they ran into a problem: on a 1989 budget, there's no way they could realistically show humanoid insect aliens scary enough to be the series villains. Sticking random googies and jimjaws to people's faces was a lot cheaper, so the Borg were born, and they were an immediate hit.
Now we need to jump ahead eight years to the release of Voyager's season 3 episode "Unity." Producer Brannon Braga apparently saw a TV promo for this episode, and decided that Voyager needed a Borg crewperson, a decision which would eventually result in Jennifer Lien being fired from the production and a new cast member being hired.
The actress they hired for the role of Seven of Nine, Jeri Ryan, was married to Illinois politician Jack Ryan, but their marriage was apparently on the rocks already when she was cast, and they were divorced in 1999.
Then, Jack Ryan (a Republican) decided that he wanted to run for Senate in 2004. An investigation by Illinois journalists led to the unsealing of the Ryans' divorce settlement, which detailed some... let's say Republican-unfriendly sexual preferences, as well as some sexual abuse perpetrated toward Jeri. He dropped out with only four months until the election, and his replacement never stood a chance. Which meant that Democratic challenger Barack Obama, who had already been favored, dominated the Republican competition dramatically. This blowout led to some very glowing news coverage for Obama, which started him on his meteoric rise to the presidency only four years later.
The other two answers are excellent: only a human can teach anyone how to be a human, and AIs are structurally incapable of understanding any concept sufficiently to teach it.
I might further add: the current structure of AI as a wholly for-profit enterprise adds a level of cynicism and a susceptibility to corruption that even a for-profit human educator is not subject to; that is to say, do we want any corporation (really, any single entity) to be responsible, not only for the structure of education, but for its entire expression?
Even if a hypothetical perfect AI were completely benevolent, and owned by the people, it would still represent a bottleneck of thought and idea that would heterogenize our society. But we don't live in that world, so it's almost a certainty that education would be for sale to the highest bidder. You think historical revisionism is bad now? What if BMW could pay OpenAI to downplay the role of Germany in World War II?
It suggests that it would. It is suggesting that the quality of the models' ability to correctly understand a fast food order indicates its fitness to be used in teaching, but I would say that even a model which can flawlessly take a cheeseburger order—even a model which can flawlessly mimic the action of teaching—wouldn't be appropriate for the task. The quality of its output is unrelated to its fitness to the purpose.
I feel like, back in the day, they used to say "in theaters September 9th," which basically meant "[this movie will be] in theaters [starting on] September 9th." But then with the rise of streaming they wanted to make clear that the movie would not be released on streaming initially, so they awkwardly tagged an "only" to the beginning of the statement. You're right that the "only" was meant to modify "in theaters," and not the date, but I don't remember that construction independently before streaming.
Why on earth would I not believe you? Nobody legitimately makes the distinction unless it's ambiguous, and to Trump's tapioca pudding brain, it's far from ambiguous because the US dollar is the only dollar that exists.
This is a weird attempt at a gotcha, when the reality is that he has no intention of fulfilling this promise and no intention of justifying his failure to do so. If the GOP retains control of the legislative branch, the checks will never be mentioned again.
It's not an appropriate tool for those things, no. But this is a fallacious statement. These companies are not utilizing good AI models in their drive through software, they're using the cheapest, most bare-minimum models they can possibly get their hands on. But even if they use good models and do solve AI food ordering, even if they do manage to make it as good as a human for the task, it will still not be an appropriate tool for education or tutoring.
There's a launcher for Linux that allows you to run the Android version of Minecraft Bedrock Edition. Is there a similar thing for Fortnite?
Same place the tariff rebates came from: nowhere.
A person who is smarter than Donald Trump might say, well, it's intended to be read as (The Donald J. Trump) and (The John F. Kennedy Memorial) Center for the Performing Arts. That is to say, the "memorial" only modifies Kennedy. Of course, in actuality, he just wanted to do it as cheap and fast as possible, so he never put even that much thought into what "memorial" meant before slapping his stupid name on the building, but since it's a toilet I'm assuming that the person doing this joke is smart enough to know...?
I think the fact that it says "memorial" (though he's still alive) and that it's on a toilet kind of gives that away.
To be clear, I'm in my 40s. As far as I'm concerned, my years have been way too complex to classify any single one of them as the "worst." I'm talking about internet reactionary doomerism, which keeps on proclaiming every single year as "the worst year ever," since 2011 but especially since 2016. It seems like our culture at large should stop making such huge, binary statements like that. Some years can just be bad, or decent, or good. They don't all have to be (and can't all actually be) the best or worst; and you probably won't be able to identify the actual peaks or valleys until you're able to look back on them with some greater perspective anyway.
It was a joke, but the doomerism about that year was using that joke to say something real about 2011. That's what I'm saying.
I literally just did that with a big bunch of bananas. Like, 45 seconds before I sat down and opened Lemmy. What an interesting coincidence.
Oh man, you don't? I remember the Mayan calendar 2012 thing, and how at the end of 2011 people were like "maybe it'd be better if the world did end next year." And then at the end of 2016, I think largely with the run-up to and fallout from the election in the US, people were posting stuff like "hey don't say 2017 is gonna be your year, we don't need to tempt fate like that, just be really quiet and make no sudden moves." We're around the same age, so I dunno, maybe I was just too online then.
2011 was the first year I remember that kind of doomerism around New Year's Eve. I feel like I remember 2012-2015 being pretty normal, but then it got super amped up in 2016 (understandably) and we haven't really had a "normal" (non-doomish) New Year's since.
I remember when 2016 was the "worst year ever." And before that, when 2011 was the "worst year ever." I feel like we should hold off on calling a nadir until we start heading back up.