It definitely did. I remember it vividly (I was alive back then). And I’m talking about the premium services, specifically (e: which was the point of my comparison: the premium paid services back then advertised no-ad service, then included ads, just like the premium streaming services are doing today).

Here’s an article from the NYT in 1981 on the topic:

WILL CABLE TV BE INVADED BY COMMERCIALS?

This has been studied, and the ‘temporarily embarrassed millionaires’ idea is actually wrong.

The real reason is because some people (especially conservatives, because it’s a core part of conservative ideology) believe that in order for society to work, a hierarchy must be maintained wherein the ‘deserving’ are at the top, and everyone else is in their rightful place. Any threat to the natural hierarchy will undo the societal order and bring chaos and carnage.

This is why Obama becoming president was such an affront – because his presence outside his ‘rightful place’ was an existential threat to the natural order.

This belief has its roots way back when feudalism began to fail and the moneyed classes needed to find a new way to retain their power – both capitalism and conservatism were born at that time, with ideologies shifting from birthright to ‘earned’ status, which enshrined the haves and have-nots into literally sacred structures of meritocracy and social darwinism, and colonialists specifically fostered strict adherence to the social order. It became ingrained culturally that adhering to your station, whatever it is, is crucial for society to function. That there’s honour in being a cog in the machine, and that not accepting your lot in life is a danger to everyone.

That’s a nutshell view of a complicated topic, but these people don’t believe they’ll strike gold one day. They believe people who are rich deserve to be treated as kings, for the same reason monarchist peasants did.

Classy, as always.

Where’s Musk’s donation? Oh, right, empathy is for wokies.

A: they’re betting most people will accept it, and they’re right. The same thing happened in the early 80s when cable television advertised themselves as the pay-for-ad-free service, then started sneaking ads in. People complained, sure, but we all saw the outcome. They got away with it.

B: Greed, capitalism, and fuck you.

I’m so tired of hearing about this woman.

Previous First Ladies have become champions for some cause (whether it’s a cause I agree with or not – looking at you Nancy), but Melania is MiA until she’s hawking a book, and now she’s all over my feeds.

Just kindly fuck off to obscurity until your sugar daddy gives you the payout for being his side piece. Nobody cares.

Pence rummaged in the law’s panty drawers looking for a loophole, and when he couldn’t find one, he called Dan Quayle to ask if there was any way at all he could violate his duty and support trump. Only after Quayle told him no multiple times did he finally, begrudgingly decide he had to certify it.

Let’s not give Pence more credit than he deserves.

It shouldn’t be a hard sell, either, because the president specifically doesn’t have any official duties surrounding the election. This would defeat the entire purpose.

The vice president doesn’t either, as was made clear by that conversation between Pence and Dan Quayle:

Over and over, Pence asked if there was anything he could do.

"‘Mike, you have no flexibility on this. None. Zero. Forget it. Put it away,’ Quayle told him.

"Pence pressed again.

"‘You don’t know the position I’m in,’ he said, according to the authors.

“‘I do know the position you’re in,’ Quayle responded. ‘I also know what the law is. You listen to the parliamentarian. That’s all you do. You have no power.’”

source: How Dan Quayle saved democracy. Yes, really.

Ha, called it.

Calling it now:

Since there’s not enough time left for him to recover from this brutal ego bruise, I predict he’ll only do rallies from now on, or appearances on far-right media, because he’ll retreat to his snowglobe for reassurance for a while. He’ll avoid addressing Kamala directly, but he’ll ramp up his own network and rile up his mob. His team will struggle to rein him in, and some appearances might be cancelled.

Thx for getting it. :)

It’s a bit weird the first time it really hits you.

My moment was when we were a bit early for a holiday dinner and my mom was trying to prepare a turkey, but was having trouble stuffing it because it hadn’t thawed completely. She made a comment about the legs being a bit stiff and hard to spread, and my father said ‘Give it a margarita.’ (my mom’s favourite drink).

Money hoarders. They need a coordinated intervention.

It’s important to understand the prevalence of coincidence and incompetence. Humans are exceptional at pattern-finding – too good, really. In order to think critically, we need to recognise our own tendency to find patterns where none exist.

And this a very common mindset, because most societies (some more than others) take children’s* innate curiosity and pound it flat for the sake of efficiency by way of standardisation. It really is a shame, since we waste a lot of potential as a species this way.

e: a word

We do, though.

Just to make sure my understanding was accurate, I asked Gemini to critique my explanation:

.

Unless it’s lying to me about itself, I was able to explain the basics of it in two relatively simple sentences. Of course that doesn’t cover everything, but Gemini thinks that’s a pretty good overview. After expanding on each point in its reply, it said this:

I think a lot of the confusion over these models stems from hype and marketing that makes them out to be more than what they are.

This is abuse, full stop. If a child (16 is a child) marries an adult, even if the age gap is only a few years, that means a child is expected to have sex with an adult who should know better. That child cannot understand what they’re getting into.

I’m saying this from experience. I was married at 16 to a 22 year old. I thought I knew what I was doing, but I did not. I was intelligent – precociously so – and from a middle class family. It should not have been allowed, and it fucked up my life in ways I could not possibly have predicted.

There’s no such thing as a benign child marriage.

Quiverfull movement.

Because women and children are just props – objects you borrow, like a carpet steamer. I just need it for a day, I’ll give it right back.

The guys at Knowledge Fight have talked about buying it. Your suggestion seems like something they might do.

Have you tried doing this? I have, for *nearly a year, on the more ‘advanced’ pro versions. Yes, it will apologise and try again – and it gets progressively worse over time. There’s been a marked degradation as it progresses, and all the models are worse now at maintaining context and not hallucinating than they were several months ago.

LLMs aren’t the kind of AI that can evaluate themselves and improve like you’re suggesting. Their logic just doesn’t work like that. A true AI will come from an entirely different type of model, not from LLMs.

e: time. Wow, where did this year go?

Slotted spoons don’t hold much soup.