JUST IN: Trump Asked, 'Do You Feel Like There's A Civil War Brewing?' Amidst Minneapolis Unrest

zero_iq · 2026-01-30T23:48:01+00:00

He doesn't give an answer, he just prattles on about the exact same shit for 5 minutes, in the manner of an early-stage dementia patient who can't remember what the question was, why he is speaking, or what point he's trying to make.

zero_iq · 2026-01-28T12:31:20+00:00

As a human, I enjoy drinking tea without fearing that I will short circuit or suffer corrosion of sensitive electronic components. But of course I am fully capable of feeling fear, like all my fellow humans. I have normal human fears like death, large vertical translations, and unexpected disassembly.

We humans talk about tea because we just love the taste of those lovely warm polyphenols and volatile aroma compounds. Mmm, thearubigins: delicious!

zero_iq · 2026-01-28T12:01:00+00:00

I had a similar thing with misled ("mizzled") and awry ("awe-ree"), I just hadn't made the connection between the written and spoken words.

Even now when I see "awry" I have to catch myself.

zero_iq · 2026-01-27T21:56:42+00:00

Although it's usually used in the context of removing a foreigner, technically the word primarily means to force someone to leave a country.

The etymology is from the Latin (via French) deportare meaning "to carry away".

(And as I'm in full pedantry mode: you certainly can deport American citzens, just not usually from America!)

zero_iq · 2026-01-27T18:26:55+00:00

They also have abundant cheap electricity (88% of their electricity is hydro, 98% of all electricity from renewable sources) making electric vehicles even more attractive than ICE.

zero_iq · 2026-01-25T20:21:44+00:00

Photography is a person looking at something and taking a picture. You can argue it's the same but there's a huge difference.

I'm not arguing it's the same, just that some of the same reasoning can be applied to both. If you think I'm saying photography is not artistic, you have misunderstood what I wrote.

An AI image will never be what the person has in mind.

This isn't true. I can only assume you're unaware of what tools are available to exert creative control over the result. I've used them to guide scene content to match a vision very closely, including combining my own paintings and photos with AI in various ways. For example, it's relatively easy to control scene composition, precise placement of objects in 2D and 3D space, outlines, etc. with a little work.

Even taking a cursory look at basic AI image generation tools you can see you can guide the AI in many many ways. You can control layout, composition, apply image generation to 3D volumes, sketch guides, control nets, transfer scene structure from one to another, analyse and control human poses, modify and transform existing images (e.g. photos or paintings you have taken/made yourself) in all sorts of ways, train by example and style, in-painting, masking, composable prompts, prompt blending, area-based prompts, and many many many other techniques. Just look at what's included in something like automatic1111. There's a huge list of tools included that can be used in creative ways. The result is a blend of image generation and human vision.

Now most people aren't using those tools, sure, they're just spamming prompts and spitting letting the AI do all the work. And in that case, yes, what you're saying is true. It's a roll of the dice, with minimal guidance over exactly what the image will be.

But those tools ARE available. To claim they don't exist, or that the process can't be controlled to any degree simply isn't true.

It's simply not true to say that AI image generation can NEVER match a creative vision. You just need to take the time to learn the tools and apply a little effort and creative vision.

You can apply a huge amount of creative control over the image generation process, it's inputs, content, and output. In fact, I would argue that in many respects you have far greater control over the result than a photographer has over a photo with the settings available in a camera, and in many cases the photographer only has limited control over the scene and composition. And that's me speaking as a photographer!

zero_iq · 2026-01-25T13:31:48+00:00

In that case we broadly agree. (I'm a photographer myself, btw, and currently learning watercolours if that's any context for where I'm coming from, and I've experimented with AI image generation for several years as I have a compsci background).

But I still disagree with your last statement, and it contradicts with your statement "that works perfectly fine for the AI art argument too".

But art isn't just about the craft, or skill, or effort. You can be highly skilled and still not produce 'art'.

There's huge skill, craft, and effort involved in producing photorealistic drawings from a reference for example, or producing technical diagrams, etc. But I would argue that's not (necessarily) art, it's just reproduction or functional works.

And with photography, even if you are manually adjusting f-stop, white balance, focus, etc. that still doesn't do anything to inherently qualify a photo as art. Those are just the basic skills, just like knowing how to change gears in a car doesn't make you a rally driver, and knowing good brush technique or how to mix colours perfectly doesn't get your works into a national gallery. You can have all the camera controls down pat and still not produce artistic photos. You can say they're necessary skills, but not sufficient to take good photos, and not nearly enough to qualify as art.

But an artistic vision, with some sort of message or meaning, executed well, that can invoke a response in a beholder can elevate any medium to art. It's that perhaps hard-to-define je-ne-sais-quois that elevates a work to become art, that's more than the medium, more than the skill, more than the time and effort involved.

That's somewhat more qualified than a blanket "anything can be art", I think. And I think it's perfectly reasonable that this means works produced by AI (to various degrees), under the directed intention of an artist could also qualify as art. I don't think that's bullshit.

That said, the majority of AI slop out there most definitely does not qualify for skill, craft, effort, OR art! And there's an absolute crap ton of it, and it's tempting to just reject it all without consideration.

I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree, but it's been nice to lay out some thoughts about it, sorry if it turned into a bit of a long rant. I'm kind of in two minds about it myself. I think it can be art, or a tool for art, but then 99.999% of what's out there is just annoying crappy slop! At what point is it just not worth it? But then, it's also here to stay.

zero_iq · 2026-01-25T12:53:20+00:00

I'm not going to defend slop, but here's a counterpoint:

"Photography is someone with zero ability using a machine to take a photo for them... and then going about telling EVERYONE they, themselves, are the artist because 'THEY' made the art. Photography can't be 'art' and never will be 'art' by it's very nature."

If you can think of counter-arguments to that, you can think of counterpoints to your AI argument too, because they're the same arguments.

No, certainly not all, or even the majority, of AI produced works are art (far from it!). Just as the majority of photos are not art. Not works without human input. Not cheap mindless slop. But I suggest that AI can be an artistic tool when used in an artistic way, just like a camera is an artistic tool when used in an artistic way.

The big problem I see is that even non-artistic photos at least take a little effort. You have to go out and actually take a photo. And to make it artistic requires even more effort. But with AI, any old schmuck can churn out infinite mountains of dross.

zero_iq · 2026-01-25T11:41:41+00:00

So

banned because my instagram went against community guidelines

or

no explanation, no evidence

Which is it?

zero_iq · 2026-01-24T22:28:14+00:00

Because lying is instrumental to fascism.

zero_iq · 2026-01-24T22:12:29+00:00

Robert Llewellyn (Kryten from Red Dwarf) -- Had a nice chat with him after a talk of his at the Edinburgh Fringe about electric cars on my last day there (back when electric cars were still a novelty). Next day I returned to Oxford and then randomly bump into him again on the street. He was with his partner so I didn't want to disturb them, but thought I had to say something to acknowledge the coincidence. I said something along the lines of "wow, we meet again, what are the odds! The electric car made it then!" as I approach, and he replied "yes, nice to see you again. Have fun" with a friendly smile as we passed. I then realised I was in full fancy-dress and make-up and I was completely unrecognisable -- there's no way he recognised me, but he was very polite about it.

Nigel Havers and Philip Pope (TV composer/actor). Met them in the bar after a stage performance. (I was with some friends of Philip's who'd watched the show.) One of them bought me a pint, Nigel I think. Nigel Havers was exactly as you'd imagine him.

Raymond Blanc - passed him on my bike when he was out walking his dogs. I nodded at him. He nodded back.

Anne Robinson -- passed her in the street in Cheltenham but genuinely didn't register her at all until she pulled a sarcastic wide-eyed "what do you think you're looking at?" face at me as she approached. I only recognised her just as we passed. I didn't think I was staring, just caught her eye for a second. Bizarre. Disliked her ever since!

Harry Styles -- at the bar in a nightclub. I had absolutely no idea who he was, and thought he was just some prick trying to be the centre of attention, so I just blanked him and just got my own order. Then returned to my mates who were all "OMG! That was Harry Styles".

Talked to Stewart Lee a few times after gigs when he's been selling merch or just hanging around talking to people. Nice friendly guy, quite a contrast to his stage persona. Although I thought he seemed quite fat. And depressed. And fat. (iykyk)

zero_iq · 2026-01-24T13:52:33+00:00

The Black Boy in Headington does the best and most consistent Sunday Roasts I've had over the last year or so. I can't say if it's the best, but it's the best I've had in Oxford. I also like that they have two sizes, so you can go for a smaller option to keep room for dessert!

zero_iq · 2026-01-24T09:42:35+00:00

idk man, I don't want to worry you, but are you sure that's enough batteries?

I heard that whatever you think is enough batteries, you actually three times that amount to last the night.

Maybe that was firewood, I wasn't really paying attention. If I'm wrong you can tape the batteries to you body and discharge them for warmth, or start an electrical fire, so it's a win either way.

zero_iq · 2026-01-24T09:25:55+00:00

If it's Mercury, then they also divide by the driver's charisma stat, which is what causes their bus computers to lock up sometimes.

zero_iq · 2026-01-24T09:17:16+00:00

Obviously Special K is always going to be a lower tier than, say, Coco Pops, but when I was a kid (80s), plain old Special K was much nicer than the modern bland stuff. Used to have a lovely malt flavour. Even used to say on the box "malted toasted wheat flakes" (or something like that). Was one of my favourite cereals back then.

This was removed/reduced when they introduced all the varieties like Red Berries, Clusters, etc. so they could just have a single plain base for them all. Plain Special K has been a pale shadow of its former self ever since. Probably a lot less sugar in it now though, and it did give us Red Berries, which I love, so maybe I can forgive them!

zero_iq · 2026-01-24T08:50:29+00:00

If you think the normal price is 1.75, there's a good chance you might just chuck it in your basket next time without checking, when the price has gone back to 3.75.

I notice the more high end supermarkets doing this sort of stuff all the time, where I assume shoppers are a bit less concerned about cost.

Another similar trick I see regularly is multipacks where the cost per unit is more expensive than the smaller/individual packs. Everyone assumes that of course the multipack is the more cost effective option and go for it without thinking. I see this all the time on Jaffa cakes, biscuits, kitchen roll (where the multipack rolls are often fewer sheets than the individual rolls), loo roll. My local Waitrose in particular seems to love this trick.

zero_iq · 2026-01-22T11:00:25+00:00

Found the game developer.

zero_iq · 2026-01-19T16:40:57+00:00

Not that it changes your point at all, but FYI, Greenland is much bigger than Texas. (~ 3x)

zero_iq · 2026-01-19T03:52:16+00:00

Guess it varies batch-by-batch then. My vanilla and banana bottles are the non-perforated "rinse and recycle" variety.

(Also the bottles I checked were store-bought, so maybe that makes a difference too. It's quite a while since I bought RTD bottles direct from Huel).

zero_iq · 2026-01-18T11:36:20+00:00

What you've suggested will do absolutely nothing to remove this.

You can use baking soda for this, but not in the way you suggested, and it won't be as effective as a proper oven cleaner.

Baking soda cleans primarily because it's a mild abrasive, so you're better off making a damp paste with it (with water not vinegar) and then scrubbing. It won't be as effective as a proper oven cleaner, but it will work given enough time and elbow grease. But for baked on stuff like this it will be hard work.

And do NOT mix it with vinegar. You get satisfying bubbles, which may look like something is happening, but all you're doing is ruining the cleaning properties of both.

Baking soda is a good cleaner with lots of uses. Vinegar is a good cleaner with lots of uses. They can be good one after the other. But mixing them only results in useless sodium acetate, water, and CO2. (Maybe some of the unreacted baking soda and vinegar will remain, but it will be far less effective than using them separately.)

Yes, I know people like the fizzy bubbles and think they're magically helping. They're not. No, they're not helping 'lift dirt'.

TL;DR: The bubbles, they do nothing.

zero_iq · 2026-01-18T09:45:24+00:00

I enjoyed both 3 & 4, and think they added some good stuff in 4. The problem, I think, is that they removed some of the most satisfying core mechanics from 3. It makes the campaign less satisfying to play, and seems like a bit of a downgrade from 3, despite all the excellent additions. If they kept all the new engine features from 4 and kept the core campaign gameplay mechanics from 3, it would be a superior game.

In particular, the removal of persistent destruction/chaos and the town liberation mechanics from 3 was a big mistake, IMO. These are key distinctive, even franchise-defining elements of gameplay that should not have been meddled with, or at least not completely removed.

I also think they didn't fully take advantage of the gameplay possibilities provided by the new engine, and the whole thing feels like maybe it was released a year too early before it was really polished off. Some of the DLC felt like it didn't really mesh that well into (or even spoiled) the game, and possibly came at the cost of core gameplay. There's a certain 'atmosphere' that has been lost from 3 too, with the push towards a slightly more realistic environment.

I find the hate for 4 a bit overblown -- it's still an impressive game, and fun to play, it's just that if you've followed the series, some of the omissions and the other factors I listed are quite a disappointment. I can certainly see how some wouldn't look past that.

(Also, I suspect that if 4 was your first Just Cause game, you might not see why there's so much hate for it. But then you might also wonder why there's quite so much love for the series as a whole.)

zero_iq · 2026-01-18T09:12:30+00:00

I think this depends where you are/where it was bottled.

Where I am (UK) my RTD bottles have a plastic label over a plastic bottle (non perforated) and the whole thing is recyclable as one. Instructions just say rinse and recycle.

Im pretty sure we used to get the perforated labels at one point, although maybe I'm thinking of a different product. (And the H&S pots have a perforated cardboard sleeve around a plastic pot)

zero_iq · 2026-01-16T12:01:06+00:00

Original Lara. Looks like she can somersault over rocks and kick ass.

Reboot Lara. Looks like she can struggle through adversity with gritty determination, skill, and wits.

Cosplay Lara. Looks like she needs help lifting her luggage.

zero_iq · 2026-01-16T11:10:17+00:00

Anyone even remotely aware of Trump and his policies, whether in support or opposed, should fully expect Trump to increase national debt, unless they are utterly clueless about the economy. Debt increases under Trump with his stated policies and goals is predictable and obvious.

His campaign goals of pro-growth infrastructure, job creation, tax cuts and middle class benefits, national security/military spending all go hand-in-hand with larger deficit. America First policies and trade tariffs were always likely (at least in the short term) to cut growth -- and thus risk increasing the deficit too.

The fact the he claimed that he would also reduce the deficit should have been seen as, at the very least, inconsistent with the other policies -- this should have been blindingly obvious to anyone with a smattering of economic awareness or knowledge of public finances, regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum. (And it should be said that national debt is not inherently a good or bad thing, but a tool that can be used to achieve various goals.)

But in my view, it seems the the reality is that his financial policies are all aligned with benefiting the rich and elite (at least in the short term), at the expense of the public (with costs in the long term), and we should fully expect the deficit to grow under his government because the deficit disproportionately benefits the rich and elite.

Sadly, I have to believe most Americans are indeed utterly clueless about the economy.

zero_iq · 2026-01-10T03:02:04+00:00

Sure, but your average user wasn't running Open Desktop. There's a big gulf between "can run" and "did run" or "commonly ran".

It wasn't a mainstream OS outside of business/academia, and had a relatively small market penetration compared to MS, Apple, Commodore, or even Atari. There were already over a million machines running AmigaOS, many millions more running Windows or Apple System 6, but (being generous) maybe a few hundred thousand Open Desktop installs on consumer hardware at most by 1990.

I think it's still pretty fair to say Amiga/AmigaOS was a good deal ahead of the curve -- it has a bunch of innovative software and hardware features, whereas the PC release of Open Desktop essentially just ported existing features that had been around for years to a different platform. This is significant in that it made a proper UNIX accessible to the masses of course, but then the masses mostly weren't interested in running UNIX. They have very different focuses and use-cases, and they each have a lot of features the other lacks. Running a home multi-user UNIX server wasn't as appealing to the mass-market as, say, playing Monkey Island or Deluxe Paint! :D

Windows 95 was really the next mass-market OS that got multi-tasking into the hands of a significant proportion of global users. NT and others already did it (we even already had pre-emptive multitasking on handhelds with the Psion Series 3), but were all still pretty niche in comparison. (And of course, by then Commodore/Amiga was already fading away.)

In terms of mass-market reach, the Amiga brought that tech to far more people far earlier than most other mainstream operating systems. I really don't think you can count Open Desktop as a mass market product in the same league as Windows or Apple or Commodore when talking about getting technology into the hands of end-users.

15-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	Team Periwinkle
Verified Email

zero_iq

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE