AmbitiousProcess (they/them)

Most AI models at this point won’t see significant gains from training on such a small sample of code.

You don’t need a whole corporation’s code to make a functional model, you need the whole world’s.

Adding a tiny bit of your own company’s code to the mix doesn’t really do anything to change the model much, so they generally won’t do it for that reason. Tons of training costs, the only benefit is that the model is very very very slightly fine tuned to kinda sorta produce code that’s maybe possibly a little more stylistically similar to yours.

It’s actually genuinely that simple.

Most browsers can automatically import from most other browsers.

For example, let’s say you install Firefox. It will give you the option to sync your bookmarks, credentials, saved autofill entries, extensions (if available on Firefox), and even your entire browsing history.

If you switch to a chromium-based browser like Brave, it won’t even have any trouble importing extensions, since unlike Firefox, it’ll support every single chrome-supported extension by default instead of requiring a new Firefox version to also have been made by the developer.

“I should base my surveys about human behavior solely on responses from non-human machines” said… someone, apparently? Damn. 💀

“b-b-but Amazon creates JOBS!! Jeff Bezos DESERVES that money!!!”

- Guy who doesn’t understand that jobs “created” by Amazon are jobs destroyed elsewhere by its monopoly

I initially thought this might be AI generated because it looked a little bit odd to me, but nope, seems to be real!

Here’s some other ones from NASA:

https://images.nasa.gov/details/ARC-1989-AC89-0437-9

https://images.nasa.gov/details/ARC-1989-AC89-0437-20

We can’t wait for that to happen, xitter needs to close the technology before the first image puts them in trouble.

That is why this bill imposes heavy fines. No company has good reason to operate a tool like this if every single nude generated can cost them half a million dollars each.

This bill isn’t a “you can do this but we’ll give you a slap on the wrist each time you do” bill, it’s a “if you build a tool like this and let it loose, your company is going bankrupt and we’re talking your life savings, so you’d better not”

Grok generated about 6,700 undressed images per hour.

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2026-01-07/musks-grok-ai-generated-thousands-of-undressed-images-per-hour-on-x

That would be 3.35 BILLION dollars per hour if the maximum 500k fine was enforced for each.

(I’m citing the law, not the article)

There’s a few things that I think help prevent something like that from happening.

“Nudify” or “nudified” means the process by which: an image or video is altered or generated to depict an intimate part not depicted in an original unaltered image or video of an identifiable individual

“Intimate parts” includes the primary genital area, groin, inner thigh, buttocks, or breast of a human being.

So a reasonably sized bikini probably wouldn’t qualify, because it still covers intimate areas to some degree, but anything too skimpy would.

The prohibitions in subdivision 2 do not apply when the website, application, software, program, or other service requires the technical skill of a user to nudify an image or video.

So something like Photoshop wouldn’t qualify because you’d need the skills to actually edit images yourself.

I think this:

“No, see… My app is designed to show you what you look like in user-created outfits. Like a virtual closet mirror! What do you mean users are trying on tiny bikinis and clear cellophane dresses? How could I ever have planned for that?”

Would be prevented by this law, but with very good reason. Anyone developing a feature like that could very well simply develop a filter that can tell if too much of a sensitive area is being exposed that wasn’t previously there. If they put technical safeguards in place, and it takes reasonably large amounts of effort for a user to bypass, then the site wouldn’t be liable because it would require “technical skill of a user”.

A site like that can exist, and being able to digitally try on outfits is nice, but it shouldn’t be allowed to ignore the obvious consequences of not putting restrictions on how much skin can be shown.

This company is known for this. To clarify, I mean known for making deliberately inflammatory ads, then showing them as obtrusively or carelessly as possible, because it gets people to post about it.

The only reason their company got popular in the first place was when they put these ads everywhere to piss people off and generate engagement.

https://startupsmagazine.co.uk/article-clickbait-stop-hiring-humans-marketing-campaign-made-artisan-go-viral

“The goal of the campaign was always to rage bait”

This guerrilla marketing approach, combined with traditional media coverage and tactics, led to significant success. Artisan saw a remarkable +197% growth in brand search traffic, quickly establishing itself as the most well-known AI employee creator.

But will Lidl actually listen? That’s the real question.

They might not care if one person tells them that, or even if many of them do, especially if they make the calculus that those people will probably still be buying other things at Lidl anyways.

If sales for the product drops because people are putting sticky notes on them, knocking them over or hiding them behind other products, etc, then Lidl has a reason to not bother with the hassle.

It also benefits movements through the radical flank effect. (e.g. when white people saw the Black Panther Party carrying guns to protect their community, MLK Jr’s fairly peaceful sit-ins seemed not that bad in comparison, and when having to make a choice on whether or not to give black people rights, it was easier to justify doing so if the perceived alternative was “black people in the streets with guns”)

In this case, the options then become “buy products that always have random sticky notes and are telling me I’m a bad person” vs “grab the product that doesn’t have the sticky notes”.

If it becomes increasingly annoying to buy products which support Israel because there’s constantly little sticky notes/stickers, people pushing things further back on shelves or flipping products around, etc, then it becomes a lot easier to justify just… not bothering buying the products that are being boycotted. (and it also saves people the hassle of looking up which products are being boycotted, which just makes the lives of anti-Zionists easier)

without knowing there’s a deeper meaning to it.

Honestly I dunno if that’s necessarily the “actual” meaning behind it. (not that it can’t be the way someone technically means it, though)

You can genuinely just be saying “you’re lucky to be together with someone you love”, without also saying “I find that person you’re with attractive and want to have sex with them”

what else am i supposed to say when a friend finally gets a GF?

“Congrats, happy for you!” “You two look cute together!” “I’m glad you two hit it off!”

Don’t sweat it. Most people are fine with just a simple congratulatory statement. Doesn’t have to have any deep meaning or anything, but hey, “you’re a lucky man” doesn’t have to have a deeper meaning either.

I don’t mind and actually prefer if it hits a bit less strongly over the next few weeks. Yesterday was lots of heart racing, nausea, and digestive issues haha.

Okay yeah, that’ll probably work out just fine for you then!

Caffeine usually causes me anxiety so I’ll hold off until I start finding the meds less effective.

To be clear, caffeine isn’t something most psychiatrists would recommend, and it’s most effective to just have an increased overall dosage, especially given caffeine is more likely to cause anxiety. I personally just find that it sometimes affects different things.

So for example, if I’m on my meds, AND I take caffeine, I might find myself more focused than usual, but if I’m not careful it could lead to me getting focused on something totally random or unproductive, so I have to choose if I want that added risk of accidentally blowing an hour or two on something totally unrelated to what I sat down to do.

I consider caffeine less of a “making your meds effects stronger” kinda thing, and more of an “altering how your brain responds to your meds in some ways” kind of thing. Depending on the person and their needs, adding caffeine could have wildly different results. Best to focus on meds dosage first imo.

I can’t wait until it calms down because I’m experiencing emotions and feelings I never felt and it’s a bit overwhelming. I feel like I need to relearn how to communicate and move and pick things up and work and be a human lol.

Gosh that’s so true. When you live your life trying to accounting for how your brain works on its own, and suddenly you’ve got meds that totally change how your brain is able to operate, you gotta re-train your brain a bit. All part of the process though :)

This seems too good to be true. I didn’t even know existence could be like this. Is this normal? Is it the honeymoon phase? Is it just because I’m taking an amphetamine? I’m beside myself and life feels like I’ve got all the cheat codes now. It seems too good to be true.

Kinda depends honestly. As I’m sure you know, these meds aren’t something that perform consistently across different people, but your experience isn’t uncommon.

For me personally, I had a fairly calm feeling start, and it took me till the end of the day to realize that I had barely touched social media, gotten 3X the normal amount of work done, and also had near zero anxiety.

A few weeks in, and it was more of a subtle effect, after slightly bumping up my dose after experimenting with it a bit to get some better results. I’m not sure if it was placebo, or just my body adjusting, but overall things are still way better. When I’m on my meds, I don’t overthink things anymore, my anxiety is lessened (though not gone like it originally was), and I find it easier, but not guaranteed, to switch from social media to more productive tasks, and to stay focused on those tasks.

Personally, based on what I’ve seen and heard, and what my psychiatrist has told me, I’d say you’ll probably have an experience like this:

1. Kaboom, everything is amazing, life is perfect (lasts anywhere from a few days to a few weeks)
2. Doesn’t hit as strongly as it did the first time, but still works okay
3. Not working as well, requires bumping up the dose (dose increases are incredibly common for the majority of people on ADHD meds, all part of the process, don’t sweat it!)
4. Taking your meds helps you consistently stay focused the majority of the time, and you’ll probably find most anxiety you experience will only be anxiety over something truly worthy of it, like an imminent deadline, rather than just anything under the sun.

If you want to help keep your meds effective, or just generally wanna try to make things easier for yourself, you can try supplementing a little caffeine in and seeing if it helps give you a boost (be warned this can cause headaches or anxiety spikes too, so start with a small amount of caffeine and go from there. I find it causes headaches and anxiety for me, but drastically increases my ability to hyperfocus on things, ideally something worth my time)

Or if you have extended release and instant release meds, you can try taking a small amount of instant release and your extended release at the same time to give you a boost, so you can start being productive on something, and then the extended meds will just help you continue well throughout the day after you’re already on track doing whatever it is you need to do.

I’d say that “too good to be true” feeling is true to the extent you probably will never reach the exact same high as when your brain wasn’t used to it yet at all, but overall, the meds will help a lot, even if it’s not “every day is world changingly good”, and that’s perfectly fine :)

I don’t think they’re shitting on “pricing coming down”. They’re shitting on “company raises pricing, faces backlash, promises not to do it again after clearly having no qualms about screwing over consumers”.

The point isn’t that “prices going down = bad”, it’s “prices going down ≠ company won’t screw you over later”

It’s one thing for a working person to spend whatever income they don’t need to live at a baseline on others, it’s another for someone to hoard so much money they couldn’t necessarily physically spend it all if they tried, let alone spend it on things that would actually measurably increase their happiness.

You can argue regular people should donate more, and many actually do donate more than billionaires (as a % of assets/income) depending on which source you trust to give a good enough picture, (given a lot of donations are hard to track, both from large billionaire foundations and DAFs, to smaller donors with hard to classify spending) but there is a massive gap in how much a regular person can donate relative to a rich person, even just as a % of their income.

If you live paycheck to paycheck, but have, say, $20 left over at the end of the month in actual money to your name that hasn’t already gone to groceries, rent, etc, (and we assume you have no other assets), your net worth is $20.

If a billionaire donates $999,000,000 to charity, that would be the equivalent of that person donating $19.98.

Unlike that person though, the billionaire would have a million dollars in net worth, enough money to buy a house, while the regular person would have $0.02.

Even if these conditions aren’t perfect, and you assume maybe the person has some more net worth than $20, the point still stands. A billionaire can give up almost all of their net worth and still have enough money to comfortably live, or at least meet basic living standards for the average person. For most Americans, if they lose their job, have any surprise bill, or don’t make as much money as they expected to, they will instantly become homeless the next month rent is due, even if they give up none of their existing assets and just stop adding more money on top.

This is why “billionairism” (not a real term ofc) is such a damaging condition. It not only causes you to become obsessed with hoarding wealth that you don’t necessarily need, but it causes you to do so at the expense of others you could readily help without experiencing any material downside in your everyday life. There is no reason to hoard so much wealth.

Money is just a means to get or do things. If you are not spending that money, and you have more money than you’ll ever need to spend, that excess dollar value past your realistic spending for the rest of your life is just a valueless number to you. It’s a number that will never impact your life, but it can impact others. Hoarding it is stupid and immoral.

I thought the same thing when I first read it!

We call 'em ALPRs (Automated License Plate Readers) here, but yeah it’s essentially the same thing.

Their cameras are regularly abused by police officers to stalk ex’s, have begun to be used outside their original scope, can be used illegally by one agency on behalf of another that shouldn’t have access, and have been used by Flock employees to, without permission from local authorities and against their own public statements, watch children in a gym for hours while partially erasing audit logs.

They also use Flock to monitor protestors, and track abortion seekers, all while lying about their effectiveness in preventing crime, threatening people who follow their actions, and leaving countless cameras publicly exposed without password protection, covering up vulnerabilities, and lying to city officials about Flock officials watching cameras, like the ones spying on children.

They’re really fucked up, and it’s my stance that the CEO of the company and any of the employees watching footage without consent should be criminally charged for espionage, and defrauding the public, among other things.

Hence why this article is about them leaving the openly Nazi billionaire’s platform while remaining on other platforms that are mainstream and still provide a lot of reach :)

What are we even doing, man…