Go back and read what I wrote again. I never even talked about any purported reason for you sharing it. I simply pointed out that what the article presented is indeed something that sane people would worry about and compared it to your well known penchant for saying you have no concerns with Trump getting elected.
Between your misguided reply to a three day old comment where I clearly did read and understand the article, and your copypasta wall of text that talked about a dozen different things but didn’t address the point I raised, I honestly can’t tell how much of your schtick is sealioning and how much is just incredibly poor reading comprehension.
You’re the one that brought up possible motivations, not me. My original comment was simply agreeing that any sane person would find the situation described in the article worrying and how you famously don’t share that worry. So if you don’t think Trump is anything to worry about, why did you find the article worth sharing? Or was it that you were desperate to post anything that wasn’t downvoted into oblivion?
I don’t think you’re a Russian operative (they’re honestly much better at this than you are, but it’s true that their standards are slipping). I just think you have the worst case of main character syndrome I’ve ever seen and you love the attention that comes with intentionally playing the heel. And that’s because you never attempt to discuss a single issue with any forthrightness or honesty. If you weren’t just playing a character, you’d actually try and make a case for your beliefs. Instead you spend your time reinforcing your self-induced martyrdom and engaging in bad faith with everyone that bothers to respond to you. You profess to wonder why people react the way they do to your posts and comments and yet you keep engaging in the kind of behavior that demands such a response. Your comments especially bring no value to the community and the majority of your many, many posts are transparent attempts to support an agenda with just enough other stuff to offer (im)plausible deniability. Whether that agenda is even for real or just because you enjoy being a perpetually online edgelord is unknowable to anyone but you - but from the outside it’s certainly unflattering either way.
Outright trolling which you all have only moderated a portion of
Overall you have a user that disrupts the community in a variety of ways and contributes nothing of value - especially in their comments. I think at least a temporary ban has been justified for quite some time.
This shows so many gross misconceptions and with such utter conviction, I’m not even sure where to start. And as you seem to have decided you like to get free stuff that is the result of AI trained off the work of others without them receiving any compensation, nothing I say will likely change your opinion because you have an emotional stake in not acknowledging the problems of AI.
And yes, your point is? It’s well known how uncaring you are about Trump winning and the lack of empathy you show to anyone else who is concerned. After all this time of “Don’t talk to me about the articles I share because I often share about things I don’t care about” - are we now to believe there is an agenda to your posts? If so, why don’t you illuminate us all?
I inherited brain structures that are natural language processors. As well as the ability to understand and repeat any language sounds. Over time, my brain focused in on only the language sounds I heard the most and through trial and repetition learned how to understand and make those sounds.
AI - as it currently exists - is essentially a babbling infant with none of the structures necessary to do anything more than repeat sounds back without understanding any of them. Anyone who tells you different is selling you something.
Hopefully not too pedantic, but no one is “teaching” AI anything. They’re just feeding it data in the hopes that it can learn probabilities for certain types of output. It “understands” neither the Reddit post nor the scientific paper.
In general I don’t think so, and there’s only about one to three accounts that downvote most things I post/comment so I don’t think it’s that. I think I’m leaning towards reactionary downvotes for anything that mentions “polls” - which is a shame, as while I don’t think polls are terribly good at being reliably predictive of the results, I think they’re fairly good when used for tracking changes in momentum and at least more reliable when analyzed in aggregate with competent and rigorous weighting based on past performance. And this article is great about explaining how that’s done by the only folks who’ve been shown to be any good at it.
I am just as confused. Most of my /politics posts and comments are relatively well upvoted, but I guess there’s a sizable contingent who just hate any mention of polls at all or have it out for Nate Silver. I was at least expecting a few more comments about how Silver ranked some pollsters and whether folks thought those assessments were accurate. 🤷🏼♂️
That was the link I gave in the comments about their current analysis based on aggregated polling. If you’re only getting a few paragraphs, I’m guessing you’re using reader view? (I default to it too) Unfortunately a bunch of news-type websites now essentially break reader view and only show a snippet. If you view outside reader, you should be able to see the polling analysis.
BTW, if you haven’t seen it already, this is Nate’s forecast page with a national aggregate, aggregates for swing states (or what were thought to be potential swing states earlier in the year), and the latest polls that have been brought into the model.
https://www.natesilver.net/p/nate-silver-2024-president-election-polls-model
You do love arguing things that aren’t even being discussed. They were removed for “trolling”. That means you were trolling, not some abstract higher order conversation. Just like the other recent violations for rule 4 and civility. This is not up for interpretation, it is fact that you were found to be doing these things.
geekwithsoul @ geekwithsoul @lemm.ee Posts 27Comments 596Joined 2 yr. ago
Go back and read what I wrote again. I never even talked about any purported reason for you sharing it. I simply pointed out that what the article presented is indeed something that sane people would worry about and compared it to your well known penchant for saying you have no concerns with Trump getting elected.
Between your misguided reply to a three day old comment where I clearly did read and understand the article, and your copypasta wall of text that talked about a dozen different things but didn’t address the point I raised, I honestly can’t tell how much of your schtick is sealioning and how much is just incredibly poor reading comprehension.
You’re the one that brought up possible motivations, not me. My original comment was simply agreeing that any sane person would find the situation described in the article worrying and how you famously don’t share that worry. So if you don’t think Trump is anything to worry about, why did you find the article worth sharing? Or was it that you were desperate to post anything that wasn’t downvoted into oblivion?
I don’t think you’re a Russian operative (they’re honestly much better at this than you are, but it’s true that their standards are slipping). I just think you have the worst case of main character syndrome I’ve ever seen and you love the attention that comes with intentionally playing the heel. And that’s because you never attempt to discuss a single issue with any forthrightness or honesty. If you weren’t just playing a character, you’d actually try and make a case for your beliefs. Instead you spend your time reinforcing your self-induced martyrdom and engaging in bad faith with everyone that bothers to respond to you. You profess to wonder why people react the way they do to your posts and comments and yet you keep engaging in the kind of behavior that demands such a response. Your comments especially bring no value to the community and the majority of your many, many posts are transparent attempts to support an agenda with just enough other stuff to offer (im)plausible deniability. Whether that agenda is even for real or just because you enjoy being a perpetually online edgelord is unknowable to anyone but you - but from the outside it’s certainly unflattering either way.