27·
7 hours agoI’m not. I’m just engaging in some light entertainment.
- 10 Posts
- 115 Comments
Joined 3 months ago
Cake day: July 18th, 2024
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
I’m thoroughly impressed by this article. Its analysis demonstrates a deep understanding of the current political landscape and provides valuable insights that cut through much of the noise and speculation dominating headlines.
What stood out most is how it contextualized recent events within broader historical and societal trends, offering readers a more nuanced perspective on the forces shaping this election cycle. The balanced approach in examining policy positions and potential outcomes across the political spectrum was refreshing and thought-provoking. This piece is exactly the kind of substantive, well-researched commentary needed to foster informed civic engagement in these politically charged times.
The author’s ability to synthesize complex information from various sources and present it in a clear, accessible manner is commendable. By breaking down intricate policy proposals and their potential impacts, the article equips readers with the knowledge needed to make informed decisions at the ballot box. This level of detail, combined with the overarching narrative, creates a comprehensive picture of the electoral landscape that is both enlightening and engaging.
Moreover, the article’s forward-looking analysis is particularly valuable. By examining not just the immediate implications of current political dynamics but also their potential long-term effects, it encourages readers to think beyond the upcoming election and consider the broader trajectory of our political system. This kind of foresight is crucial in fostering a more strategic and less reactionary approach to civic participation. Overall, this piece stands out as a beacon of thoughtful, responsible journalism in an era often characterized by sensationalism and partisan rhetoric.
19·1 day agoThey’re clearly not.
What are you talking about? I just tried two test queries on DDG, and neither one had LLM-generated nonsense, and the one that was in double-quotes returned only five results, all of which had the double-quoted phrase and one of which was the thing I was challenging it to find.
Can you give an example of a query where DDG returns LLM results or doesn’t respect your double-quotes?
You need to check directly on lemmy.world, since not everything will be federated to your instance:
https://lemmy.world/u/UniversalMonk
They have 1.69k posts and 3.75k comments.
For some reason, almost all of their activity is during non-working hours in a US time zone. They have bursts of activity in the morning, during a short window in the middle of the day that could be a lunch break, in the evening, and around the clock on weekends. We’re currently in their morning burst, and then there will be a lull, and then there will be another short intense burst around lunchtime.
It’s very unusual. What I mean by that is that posting only outside work hours is pretty normal, but the absolute firehose of activity every day during any non-work hours including lunch is abnormal. From outward appearances, it looks like a person who has a full-time job but devotes almost all of their waking hours outside that job to shitposting at full speed on Lemmy about Jill Stein.
Rule 7 on !world@lemmy.world says:
We didn’t USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you’re posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
Just like choosing not to brush your teeth doesn’t change the necessity of dental hygiene
choosing to vote third party isn’t ignoring reality
You’re so close to getting it. Millimeters away.
I didn’t especially “want” to brush my teeth last night, but I did anyway. Because I know that the alternative is opening up the door to things I don’t want, even more than I don’t want to brush my teeth.
If someone woke up and said, I’m proud I didn’t brush my teeth, because I didn’t want to, I would have trouble looking at them as a source of wisdom about how to accomplish the goals they’re trying to pursue.
Claude.ai is quite a bit superior to GPT in my experience. That one, I pay for, and it seems like it’s worth it.
Like I said, definitely still possible. It is certainly an action that you can take.
in OhioIf you want your vote to count, you’re going to need to vote for one of the major party candidates.
If you want to move towards a future where third-party candidates are viable, you need to support RCV, so that they can get electoral support without producing the opposite impact on the election that is intended. And then, vote for one of the major party candidates this time, ideally the one who won’t destroy the machinery of democracy which we will need in future elections to enact RCV, or elect Green Party people or Democrats.
If you wanted to mark the box for Jill Stein and accomplish nothing, you can still do that. Nothing has changed. I don’t recommend it, but it’s definitely still possible.
2·2 days agoSounds good. If you redid the import, I think you’ll want to make some manual fixes to the .json. Off the top of my head, I think you just need to add bbc.co.uk and aljazeera.com to the URL lists for those sources.
Apology accepted. Have a good one.
I propose to give this article the zero amount of attention it deserves, and instead, to spend the comments talking about how to help get people out to vote.
I signed up yesterday with votefwd.org, and I’m planning on spending some time on it, as soon as they verify my signup. I’ve already turned in my ballot, but there’s still time to motivate some other people, and influence the outcome that way.
Edit: Somebody reported my comment. “Spam or abuse.” I think that means I’m doing something right. I downloaded my first packet of 5 letters to send out, but I don’t think this is the most efficient way to have the impact I’m trying to have.
I’m going to send them out, but it feels like grabbing the voter registration data for registered Democrats in swing states, and randomly sending out hand-signed but machine-printed letters that I’ve crafted, is going to be a lot more efficient. That, I can do by the hundreds. I don’t really know what I’m doing. Is there some other good way to do what I’m trying to do?
I propose to give this article the zero amount of attention it deserves, and instead, to spend the comments talking about how to help get people out to vote.
I signed up yesterday with votefwd.org, and I’m planning on spending some time on it, as soon as they verify my signup. I’ve already turned in my ballot, but there’s still time to motivate some other people, and influence the outcome that way.
Edit: I don’t think this is the way. Does anyone know how to volunteer for text banking? I think I did, a while back, but I never did it. I looked at https://web.kamalaharris.com/forms/take-action-for-kamala-harris but the prospect of having to go outside and meet people is terrifying.
I already sent it. It’s here:
https://ponder.cat/wp/wp-sources.zip
Edit: You don’t need to do the import initially, since there’s already a sources file with some small modifications. The import is the only complicated part. Use categorize.py to categorize a source, or lookup.py to run a quick command-line test.
On a different topic: It sounds like jordanlund is saying that if he tried to remove the MBFC bot from the politics sub, he might be removed as a moderator, and replaced with someone else, and the bot would come back.
https://lemmy.world/comment/12825768
Is that true? Is the admin team mandating the use of this bot, and if so, why?
Here you go:
https://ponder.cat/wp/wp-sources.zip
It’s in python, suitable for sticking directly into the bot if the bot is in python. There are docs. It’s a first cut. How did you envision this working? I can make a real API, if for some reason that makes things easier, but it’s not immediately obvious how it would get integrated into things.
Running it on the last 50 articles posted to /c/politics, we see:
- https://lemmy.world/post/20739836: Source is unreliable since ownership change
- https://lemmy.world/post/20736298: Source is unreliable for political topics since 2011
- https://lemmy.world/post/20724155: Reliability consensus is mixed
- https://lemmy.world/post/20723675: Source is unreliable
- https://lemmy.world/post/20722912: Source is unreliable
- https://lemmy.world/post/20722910: Reliability consensus is mixed
- https://lemmy.world/post/20716118: Reliability consensus is mixed
- https://slrpnk.net/post/14127964: Reliability consensus is mixed
It’s more complex to use this than MBFC, because there’s a lot more depth to the rankings, and sometimes human judgement is needed to assign scores. There’s a category “needinfo,” meaning it’s necessary to know what topic is being discussed or when an article was written, because of an ownership change or similar factor. I’ve applied that judgement above. That, to me, is a good thing. It means the bot is grounded in something, and not just blithely spitting out arbitrary scores without bothering to ground them in any reality.
In practice, I think it would be realistic to assign a single reliability ranking to most of the “needinfo” sources. You can manually edit the .json data to do so. Almost all of the posts are going to fit into one of Wikipedia’s categorizations or another. Newsweek is unreliable, The Guardian is reliable, and so on.
I think most of the mixed-consensus sources can be used without a second thought. Mostly, the questions about them boil down to open partisanship of the source, which for a political community is perfectly fine as long as they’re trustable factually.
If you want me to boil this down further, so that it gives a single “yes” or “no” score to each source, I can do that and probably keep almost all of the accuracy of the rankings, now that I’ve looked at it for a little while.
When you talk about “adding” this to the bot, are you proposing to still have MBFC be the main source, with this as a footnote? A lot of the criticism of the bot is on the grounds that MBFC is a very bad source for judging reliability, so I would question the idea of keeping it on as the primary source.
I’ve done something like this, with RSS feeds. Read !meta@rss.ponder.cat to see the existing communities, and how to add a feed to an existing community.
The concern about spam is real. A lot of these exist, for example one for Hacker News and a whole instance for Reddit, and a lot of people including myself don’t like those. I agree with you that it’s a good idea but it’s necessary to be careful that it remains a useful seed of content and not an overwhelming spew.