FaceDeer

Only if the glass gets into your lungs, though. If it’s mixed with the soil it’s just sand.

Wasn’t aware they used plastic fibers. I guess that would make it lighter, too.

Could never have guessed.

I wonder if perhaps the trade war against Canada isn’t really about fentanyl, either.

It has an eerie beauty to it.

I remember seeing some photos a while back of bird nests made out of fragments of fibre optic cable, those looked pretty neat too. On the plus side, when this stuff degrades it just turns into sand. So at least there won’t be a toxic waste problem on top of everything else.

I do, however, enjoy it when various flavors of Nazi fight each other.

So, who’s going to prison for this? Party of law and order, right?

When one option is live under a brutal dictator and the other option is have your ethnicity wiped off the face of the Earth, there isn’t really an option, is there?

You’re still missing the point. The people living there, at that time, didn’t know what those options would ultimately lead to. They didn’t have the benefit of hindsight. And even if they did, they were right there at that moment in time, having to make decisions that would determine if they survived one more day.

Basically every death in the European Theatre of WW2 can be directly blamed on Hitler and the Nazis for starting the whole thing

Poor Stalin, I guess he had absolutely no choice in all the massacring that he did. Hitler made him do it.

Not only that, but apparently the head of the Russian military intelligence, General Andrei Averyanov, was on board and was killed by the strike.

This should really highlight the shenanigans that these “shadow fleet” ships have been getting up to beyond simply transporting sanctioned oil.

Re-quoting from my comment:

And they had to pick sides without knowing what the judgment of history would be.

Emphasis added. They were making the choice without the benefit of that Wikipedia page from 2025 to refer to.

And Stalin was right up there with Hitler in terms of total kill-count, which is why it was a rock-and-a-hard-place situation. There was no good option available.

My dad had a Latvian friend in his youth, and dad would tell me about how sometimes when they’d had a bit much to drink he’d tell stories about fighting on the front lines in Latvia. For the Germans, against the Russians. He was by absolutely no means a Nazi supporter, but he had to weigh the options and try to figure out which one was less likely to end with him and his family lying dead in a ditch somewhere.

It really sucks that Latvia didn’t regain independence until 1991. I hope he lived long enough to see that.

Those Eastern European countries faced the ultimate rock-and-a-hard-place situation; side with the Nazis, side with Stalin, or get crushed by both (and whichever one you “sided” with wouldn’t treat you particularly well either). And they had to pick sides without knowing what the judgment of history would be.

Honestly, a rare situation where some Nazi collaborators deserve an “it was complicated” footnote, IMO. Though that’s a bit much to ask for on a stone monument like this.

They’re doing what the “contract” always allowed.

Yeah? You and what army?

Vigilantism is a symptom of a failed justice system. I’d give good odds on this.

It is interesting, IMO, that with AI we see the opposite of the usual trend; the fancy new disruptive technology seems to be liked more by the older crowd, and less by the younger ones.

Right, you take the article at face value. So exactly as I originally said:

you sure are relying on just believing whatever you read without any checking whatsoever.

For every news article you read?

That’s the point here. AI can allow for tedious tasks to be automated. I could have a button in my browser that, when clicked, tells the AI to follow up on those sources to confirm that they say what the article says they say. It can highlight the ones that don’t. It can add notes mentioning if those sources happen to be inherently questionable - environmental projections from a fossil fuel think tank, for example. It can highlight claims that don’t have a source, and can do a web search to try to find them.

These are all things I can do myself by hand, sure. I do that sometimes when an article seems particularly important or questionable. It takes a lot of time and effort, though. I would much rather have an AI do the grunt work of going through all that and highlighting problem areas for me to potentially check up on myself. Even if it makes mistakes sometimes that’s still going to give me a far more thoroughly checked and vetted view of the news than the existing process.

Did you look at the link I gave you about how this sort of automated fact-checking has worked out on Wikipedia? Or was it too much hassle to follow the link manually, read through it, and verify whether it actually supported or detracted from my argument?

Okay, we’ve established how you don’t do it. So how do you go about the process of fact checking every news article you read?

30 % increase in preformance? or “we WOn’T nEEd progRAmMers iN 3 yEars”?

You think people aren’t going to want to use AI unless it does literally everything for them? That’s exactly the “if something’s not perfect then it must be awful” mindset I was criticizing in the comment you’re responding to.

I don’t see a link to that research, but that means 38% don’t believe AI is significantly overhyped.

If my job depends on saying you are correct… Mr. FaceDeer you are always correct, the most correct ever.

You are now arguing that the source that you yourself brought into this discussion is no good.

This is ridiculous.

Okay, so how do you go about the process of fact checking every news article you read?

Source for what?