voracitude

antithetical to the spirit of silicon valley

Tell me you haven't been paying attention without telling me you haven't been paying attention.

No worries! I have reasons for not installing Telegram myself, but I'm curious what your reasons are? What arguments have you made to him so far and what were his responses?

Dissuade = discourage. Is that what you mean?

That is beautiful to see, I'm proud of your dad and happy for you, he really loves you ♥️

I laughed out loud when I read the title of this post. When I'm helping my customers with their domain DNS records, I always analogise DNS to "a phone book for the internet". I love that we've come full circle and phone books are "DNS for the phone system" 😂 (also goddamn does this make me feel old 😭)

Damn dude that is an impressive first shot! I'll be interested to see a side-by-side when you do give it another go, as well 😊

ITT: "you are not allowed to like things I don't like"

However you feel about how the models are trained, telling people they're not allowed to like the results is going to be a losing argument. People like what they like, and you can argue with them but you won't stop it 🤷

"Death to plastic"

"Here drink from this plastic-lined can" (https://www.plasticstoday.com/business/liquid-death-may-murder-your-thirst-but-it-won-t-kill-plastic-no-matter-what-the-ads-say)

Good thing there's no more FEMA!

Wait, no that was a terrible mistake.

I mean, it's a little more than that, but only a little. There's a literal meter in your screenshot of how left or right the source is. "Credibility rating" requires us to trust MediaBiasFactCheck's credibility rating system, which I don't know enough about at the moment and so default to not trusting it.

That's why I say calling out the problematic structures would be more helpful - people could see it for themselves, right there in the article text, and then maybe also identify then without help later. This would foster healthier discussion than an echo chamber where people ignore a source based on its biases.

Of course some sources would be more note than content, but then some sources have argued in court they're not really news.

Along with others in this thread, I don't think this feature would foster a healthy community - it would foster an echo chamber. I would rather see an analysis of the language of the article pointing out any logical fallacies used, weasel words, etc. than a "left-o-meter". I have my own one of those based on my actual beliefs, not what someone decides my beliefs have to be to fit into the blue box.

Yeah, clearly no component has ever died or could ever die earlier than its longest possible life span for any reason, overheating due to bad/old paste is the only possible reason a CPU in particular might die, you know everything about every system ever built including mine. I see my mistake and bow to your omniscience 🙄

Seriously, I'm embarrassed for you. Good luck in your studies.