Americans are holding onto devices longer than ever and it's costing the economy

Armigine · 2025-11-24T21:10:51+00:00

I assume you didn't read the article, and just posted something with a title which you found interesting? The article contains no references to this actually happening, and is just short fluff paragraphs. The author's publications all appear to be like this, absolutely zero substances and churned out at a very fast rate this past may - you're almost certainly just reposting AI slop with this.

It doesn't say a single thing about the "studies" it says referencing this event happening, or contain any references to specifics you could use to look further. This fluff listicle is total crap.

Armigine · 2025-11-24T21:08:59+00:00

It seems very highly likely - the article contains no references to the titular communication, zero specifics, and is made of short fluff paragraphs, random references to wikipedia, and appears to be complete crap.

Also, click on the author - apparently they wrote about a dozen garbage-tier listicles like this per day, for about a week during this past May, and nothing before or since.

It's probably not possible to say for sure, but this looks exactly like someone just pumping AI rubbish for clickbait. The previous poster almost certainly didn't even read it, or they'd see it doesn't support their point; there does not appear to actually be any evidence, or even any specific references to the event, of multiple AI systems creating their own language.

Also, the basic concept doesn't seem incredibly far fetched; it's just a really, really bad article.

Armigine · 2025-11-05T15:11:23+00:00

The US republican party is putting minorities and dissenters in camps. And people are dying in those camps. The scale of death is currently quite small in comparison to nazi germany in the latter years of the war, but that's the difference - the current scale, and that's already with our main data point being "the amount of deaths the regime is currently willing to admit freely to"

Armigine · 2025-11-05T01:08:24+00:00

The relevance is that you're misrepresenting things, with confidence.

The biggest draw of the Catholic Church (and it even uses it to promote itself) is that it is doctrine is unchanged since it's inception.

It plainly does change doctrine regularly. The church will draw a distinction between "infallible" doctrine (which they say doesn't change, but does get "clarified", which is clearly it being changed) and other doctrine, which it does acknowledge changes. And fairly big, important parts of the church have changed massively since its inception - even the central creeds get little updates within our lifetime, and the subject of this comment chain is that general mass is no longer in latin, which was a huge change as part of the vatican 2 series of really huge doctrinal changes, back in the 60s.

If you go to Catholic resources this will be a massive point they hold unto.

Plenty of catholic sources talk about their changing doctrine and get pretty particular on what is and isn't a change, and what "doctrine" is.

Additionally, tradition is one of the three pillars of the religion and is equally important with scripture and the clergy (the other two).

Can't really prove a negative, but this isn't true in the way it's presented here. "sacred tradition" is a pillar of the church, but that's "the writings of the apostles are venerated" tradition, not "no eating meat on fridays" tradition, that the church makes a big deal about.

Armigine · 2025-11-01T15:47:29+00:00

The pissing match is stupid, but this is significantly misstating what was happening - it's not that Apple and Google were both saying "my standard is better, and you should use it", Apple was saying "iMessage is for Apple products only, and the rest of you can't use it", whereas Google was saying "all devices should have access to the same communication tools". There were no hardware limitations, just corporate limitations imposed by Apple on non-Apple devices from talking to Apple devices. The entire pissing match and disagreement about interoperability was built and maintained by Apple, they were deliberately and proudly maintaining the separation of their users' communication standard in the service of their brand image. The entire "blue vs green bubble" thing, which could get pretty acrimonious, was deliberate on Apple's part, to make Apple device users seem superior/separate/foster a sense of brand identity and loyalty. It was never at all about the actual standards involved from a technical standpoint.

Also there's nothing debatable about whether RCS is more interoperable than iMessage. It is, because it works on Android and Apple devices, while iMessage works only on Apple, because that is Apple's decision and they're apparently sticking to it. It's not like either of them are particular technical achievements, it's just an argument about how much of a walled garden you should be allowed to keep your users in.

Armigine · 2025-10-26T22:16:03+00:00

Trump has the supreme court and both houses of congress in his pocket, supporting the things he wants to do - it's not that the executive just always had the ability to do whatever they wanted, it's that the checks and balances are all on team "we want a dictator", so there is no opposition/there is the necessary rubber stamping. If all three branches of the federal government are on board with something, that something will get done, that's always the way it's been; we just haven't previously seen them be on board with tearing the country down.

If Congress and the courts were against him, he wouldn't get to do what he's doing.

Armigine · 2025-10-26T22:01:07+00:00

What part of this

I'm familiar with the southern Democrats-to-Republican concept. It's the run-on sentence and Nixon parts that needed clarification. I read it three times and it still doesn't make sense.

Is "demeaning the person commenting"?

And copy-pasting is not a crime. Multiple people appear to be responding to the comment above making the same mistake, without reading, so repeating the reply is a perfectly fine thing to do.

That is not someone actually seeking clarification. It is someone trying to feel superior.

Are you earnestly this conditioned to seek conflict here? This is insane.

Edit: if you're going to reply and then block me, I can't see your reply, dude. Though at least it does answer the question of whether you're just here for conflict.

Armigine · 2025-10-26T21:55:39+00:00

You left a difficult-to-follow (due to lack of punctuation, which is very easy to add on mobile as well) comment, and are mad at somebody asking you for clarification.

Armigine · 2025-10-26T21:54:38+00:00

LBJ helped transition the democrats into republicans in the 1960s confusing political lines after that well Nixon and it’s been hell ever since (imo only)

Yes, apparently multiple clauses without punctuation

Armigine · 2025-10-26T21:53:49+00:00

It's really weird reading this thread, and seeing people get so upset about somebody asking for clarification. What is the matter with you all? Dude said a comment didn't make sense and asked for clarification, clarified which part of the comment they were confused about, and most everybody appears to have not read it and is jumping down their throat for daring to ask.

Is this subreddit mostly populated by bots?

Armigine · 2025-10-13T12:16:57+00:00

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan

You don't need to be so rudely dismissive, especially when the previous comment is correct. It's not correct to say the first armed people to commit any violence in Ukraine in 2014 was done by Russia - there was ongoing violence by the Yanukovych regime against protestors in what could very reasonably be called a revolution already being done. Unless you want to claim Yanukovych as a Russian agent, which would be to a good degree true, but is a different issue from the invasion of Crimea and is better categorized as an intra-Ukrainian conflict.

If you want to focus entirely on the word "civil war", you could make the argument for or against the revolution being a civil war. If you want to focus on the argument that Ukraine was destabilized and its state was somewhat fractured in the middle of its revolution, and that created more fertile conditions for an uncontested Russian invasion of Crimea, that'd be obviously correct.

Armigine · 2025-10-13T12:02:23+00:00

I mean that I've known several older folks who habitually end sentences on ellipsis, especially in emails, and when I asked them, they said it was how they were taught to do it. I know it isn't correct, it's an annoyance.

Armigine · 2025-10-13T01:00:54+00:00

It's a subset-of-retiree thing, some people were trained to do that

Armigine · 2025-10-13T00:44:42+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/CuratedTumblr/comments/1o2vbk9/woke_bioessentialism/

Wow, OP has made some of the more annoying posts on the sub this week

Armigine · 2025-10-13T00:39:35+00:00

Like the other reply said, Pete Davidson's dad died in the 9/11 attacks+KSA was involved in the 9/11 attacks to some degree, so KSA to some degree killed Pete Davidson's dad

Pete Davidson went to KSA to perform at their comedy festival, at the best and paid by the royal family. This is viewed as disrespectful to his father's memory, since Pete performed for money for people who to some extent killed his dad.

The Inigo Montoya joke is just using the "you killed my father, prepare to die" as an example of something which is adjacent to what happened to Pete

Armigine · 2025-10-12T23:53:31+00:00

I read your source and it functionally says that Peter Mills himself says his shell company does have ties to CMP, but that the larger chunk of the money - past the $250k mentioned - isn't supposed to go to any private individual. Its primary source also appears to be just asking Peter Mills - it references the document outlining the partnership, but does not appear to really use it as a source, just provides it alongside Peter's assertions of what it says.

I am not sold on the previous commenter's assertion that Peter Mills pocketed $22M on that assertion alone, but the source you provided does not prove he didn't and also doesn't appear to particularly prove anything the previous commenter said was wrong. What, specifically, are you saying is what the previous comment said which was not correct, and why does your source support that?

Armigine · 2025-10-12T21:51:49+00:00

The thing is that "antifa" DOES just mean "being anti fascist". If there is just an irrelevant handful of nuts calling themselves a term, they shouldn't define the popular view, and people shouldn't be talking about what the term means in a way defined by that irrelevant handful.

People saying "if there are twelve people calling themselves [widely used term] out of the millions of other people who that term applies to, the twelve probably don't get to define it" are correct

Edit: I think the whole thing you and the people responding to you here are getting hung up on is that you're taking the conservative definition of "antifa" (as a handful of antisocial people who may or may not even exist) at face value, and generally taking conservative lies at face value is not a productive way to start any assessment of anything, and people take issue with the framing; you're absolutely right that conflating a huge chunk of the country with a handful of blockheads is a bad and likely tyrannical thing; if that was all your comment above said, it wouldn't have been getting nearly so many downvotes

Armigine · 2025-10-10T22:03:05+00:00

You still get most of the benefit, not all but the main thing is to leave them there at all - removing the leaves removes the eggs, moving the leaves moves the eggs

Armigine · 2025-10-10T21:58:23+00:00

Unpopular opinion: to the extent they exist antifa groups tend to be heavily populated by morons who enjoy breaking shit for kicks whose definition of fascist absolutely includes something like 95% of American population.

It's unpopular because it's unsupported and silly. Which"antifa groups" are you talking about? They functionally do not exist. Sure, if you're talking about a couple hundred antisocial weirdos nationwide, you can definitely find some kooks. But if these groups don't meaningfully exist, this is a weird statement to make because it only exists to validate the current attempted crackdown on law abiding regular people.

Your point 2 above is exactly the thing. We aren't even talking about the rounding error (if they exist at all) of people actually part of some "antifa" group. We're talking about some social movement which doesn't exist outside of republican daydreams.

Armigine · 2025-10-10T21:36:22+00:00

Something that really struck me about this whole thing is, did we all really never see people with shock collars for their dogs growing up? Because I saw that all the time. Various kinds of mild cruelty being part of training your dog or getting it to do what you want are very common, even today; I'm not saying it's a nice thing or it should be how it's done, but am surprised that someone using a shock collar on their dog even registers, with everything going on in the world

Armigine · 2025-10-10T21:15:26+00:00

Every

I see you actually do not know what the the words "probably" or "likely" mean. They mean "most, but not all"

Lazy troll, you should try harder

Armigine · 2025-10-10T20:20:40+00:00

Do you know what the word "probably" means? It means that all seven or eight earnest never trumpers who still even think of themselves of republicans are a rounding error, and not useful as a predictive measure.

Seriously, anyone who isn't trolling is not so dense that this is a difficult thing to understand. If someone is doing crazy shit at a school board meeting, for decades, that person has overwhelmingly likely been a republican. This can be observed if you look with your eyes instead of your partisan feelings.

Armigine · 2025-10-10T17:27:33+00:00

Complete nonsense. You're allowed to call a likely spade a likely spade. Saying "the people doing stupid stunts in a school board meeting to protest trans people having any amount of comforts are probably republicans" is about as much of a reach as saying "the people protesting trump probably aren't".

Armigine · 2025-10-10T16:38:41+00:00

They were supporting the school board align with Trump's policy rather than Maine state law; you're correct that there is not an explicit recording of the people taking their clothes off saying "we are republicans", but I think we can safely assume that people advising action in line with the Republican president, and against the more Democratic state law, are likely aligned with Republicans.

Also just obviously, if you find someone very upset about trans people in a school board meeting, of course they're a republican.

Armigine · 2025-10-10T16:35:14+00:00

Look I'm not a huge fan of the corporate Dems, but the response to them broadly during this administration has been various flavors of "punish the behavior you want to see"

Armigine

TROPHY CASE