sircac

Specially with the lately particularly active lawfares…

You are right, thanks! I misread the graph and thought it was a 4 cycles per day, which was puzzling me, but is indeed just a daily oscillation

Intrigued by the quarter a day oscillation in that graph… 🤔

Not to mention that plan and engagement of the NYT story is purely based on writers and potential readers relating to such fact, behave as if it is something worth of mentioning in a story in the first place borders hypocrisy… they forgot their first time got access to unlimited internet

Hate and Love, sure…

The more the merrier, long live the fediverse!

It is not just for war, but disasters in general, imagine a colapse or jamming of internet network or credit card buying or isolation from a flood or erathquake, help and minimum delivery infrastructures may take easily 3 days in effectively reach the people in need, is a reasonable amount to recover from the shock having around in average the minimum to survive in the mean time. Worse problems will be waiting for solution but this could save lives and improve significantly circumstances.

Well, there is probably some survival/confirmation bias on that statistics, those answers are the funny ones… in any case probably is not necessary a LLM to state such statements

A LLM can “reveal” also that water ice melts into mapple syrup given the proper prompts, if people already can (consciously and not) lie proportionally to their biases I don’t understand why would somebody treat a LLM output as a fact…

My name Is Nobody (Il mio nome è Nessuno)

Only? Probably for the remaining 27% it never was…

There are needs and needs, I refuse to help a money begger unless is a close friend which I can control how is the best I can do for him, money being the last resource. Instead I always demand for social programs and services sustained by taxes to support those in real need (survival needs) unconditionally.

I would sleep much better if part of my tax contribution (together that of anybody in function of their resources) goes to grant the minimum for a “dignity survival” to any human being regardless of their returned contribution, with programs for reinsertion and mental support so they have the best chances to reach eventually a “dignity life”.

And, if still they cannot but just “survive” for the rest of their lives, I still want to fund it and give them the security to do it with dignity until the very end.

I would prefer any ActivityPub instance, but press media (and in general private entities), to which scientific institutes intend diffusion, is moving to bluesky…

Nope, no stay silent about them at all, actions must be taken indeed, but stay silent to them: if you answer or react to his words you accept the dialogue, legitimating the value of a speech full of fallacies, from someone that does not speak for a prolific constructive exchange of ideas that may result in advancing the understanding of a situation regardless of the thesis but from someone that only say those words to echo those slogan-like fallacies for the long run strategy.

The more care we put in avoid working for their propaganda the better. I believe that media and personalities reactions would better be accompanied by the statement that is a speech so full of fallacies that is worthless consider the arguments exposed nor the apparent conclusions, therefore no dialogue effort has been carried out but an attempt of manipulation based on lies, what more can be the opinion but the inappropriateness of such behaviour?

I agree, they are recognised agents, so they should be invited, and I would turn on the microphone for them and wait patiently until they finished their speech within their rightful time, we play according to the rules, but then I would continue as if those minutes never existed, as a journalist I would provide the report of the real value of those irrelevant words and as a consumer I would treat their speech as useless as a child’s play as an adult blabbering, not too much to do with it, why isolate their catchy fallacies and amplify them? They do not contribute constructively to a coherent debate but exploit the system weaknesses. I believe that it starts in our individual choices.

I already said it somewhere else:

I think this people have long already disqualified their ability to speech anything worth of coherent value, why keep listening them or take note of their words? They do not follow the rules of that game, is not possible to play on the same terms so that battleground is a distraction at best, a cancer at worst.

Don’t feed the troll, don’t support the bully.

Like it or not, but with agents prone to use military force around the corner we better prepare for it one way or another, either to fight back or to subdue, because deterrence is at the weakest point since decades and most of Europe has become unused to war efforts.

I personally hate to have to do this, strength countries mutual balanced dependence that makes this undesirable for both parts is my preferred choice over spending on military resources, but lacking of that tie with those agents around…

It was already soooooo dead out there that I doubt they considered this systematic properly in the study…

When reading the title I accidentally placed an ‘i’ in ‘ads’…