News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
I thought Charlie's medical found lethal doses of fentanyl in his system.
There is no standard lethal amount of fentanyl. Someone who is naive to the medication could die from a very minute amount, while someone with experience and tolerance could do far more.
I don't believe anyone here was saying there was.
You are correct though. It was obvious some conservatives wanted the execution, they just watched, to not be labeled an execution. "Self inflicted overdose" was a convenient excuse for them, so they ran with it.
They tried the same thing with Alex Peretti too. Disgusting behavior.
there's actually a measure, it's called the LD50.
That takes no account of tolerance.
The 50 stands for "This doe would kill about half the people who took it"
I understand that, and thats probably a good rule for those who are naive to the medication. Tolerance does change the lethal amount on an individual basis so its hard to make statements on what would be lethal for a specific person though.
LD50 is based on the adult population as a whole.
You could see how that might be misleading though, to say that George Floyd was over the LD50 for fentanyl?
That's not unheard of since LD50 literally stands for Lethal Dose for 50% [of a group]. There will always be those that can survive the LD50 as well as those that succumb to doses under it.
Does an ld50 actually take into account the extreme ends or does it just not impact the result much?
What about 220 grains of fent going 2400 fps into your neck?
Fent bullet incoming.
Source on that?
I told you the source: Charlie Kirk's medical examiner.
I’m confused. That’s an article about George Floyd?
Son, You make Molasses in January look swift.
Ok, just to check I'm not being too obcure I put my initial comment into Gemini.I asked it to explain the comment in the context of a post about the bullet that killed Charlie Kirk. It doesn't know Kirk is dead, it did get the joke though. Now to the article, would you like to read the initial paragraph again please... Perhaps copy it into your next comment. Who's the first picture in the article of?
Prompt:
Explain this comment left under an article about the bullet that killed Charlie Kirk:
"I thought Charlie's medical found lethal doses of fentanyl in his system."
Gemini:
To understand that comment, you have to look at it through the lens of internet subcultures and political satire. It is a layered reference to the 2020 death of George Floyd and the subsequent memes that emerged from right-wing and left-wing online spaces. Here is the breakdown of why that comment was made:
You used AI to explain a joke to you? Bruh
What's the problem? It seemed to do a good job explaining it. As a non-American who didn't get the joke either, it was helpful
They're going for the 'AI bad' vote.
It doesn't matter that the summary is correct and accurately demonstrates the user's point.
Because they used AI, the people (who, mind you, responded to the wrong user and also didn't read the article before responding) immediately jump to the conclusion that it's bad.
I used AI to explain my own joke to myself? I don't understand your comment.
Like the person I asked to re-read the initial paragraph of the article I linked, explaining the comment I made. I'll ask you to re-read the initial sentence of the comment I made explaining the joke I made.
I used AI to explain my joke to someone who couldn't figure out the article about Charlie Kirk, was about Charlie Kirk, even when the initial picture is Charlie Kirk, and the initial sentence names Charlie Kirk.
I'm done with Lemmy for the day until you peeps start to read what you're replying to.
I would hazard a guess that the user only read the link text before responding.
People just want to comment with their hot take and don't care to do things like read the article or look at the username of the commenter before responding.
Bolding mine:
Um, does Gemini not know that Charlie Kirk is dead?? (Yes I know AI doesn't really "know" things)
I guess not. I don't know if that's because the training data is old. Or, there's been so much satire around public figures dying that it was more likely article was satire than not. I didn't inform Claude that it was a Guardian article, perhaps it would have changed response given that, thinking Guardian doesn't post satire that often.
It got a lot wrong, LLMs aren't trained to be factually accurate though. They're trained on us, and we're wrong all the time.
Thanks for attempting to explain it.
You seem to have gotten Gemini and Claude mixed up? Your previous comment only mentioned Gemini.
Fixed, thanks for the correction. Ironic "We're wrong all the time" in a comment containing a factual error.
I'll take the downvotes, but my Autistic ass didn't get the satire, so I appreciate the explanation.
No worries, I meant it in a "Hurr Durr, even the dumb AI gets it, and it doesn't even know Kirk is dead", which was perhaps ablest of me.
Going forwards I don't really know what I want to do about it. I don't think I'll stop making layered satirical comments, but posting the explanation along side feels like it's taking the "bite" away from the satire. I should probably have posted the AI summary there to avoid most of the nonsense that followed.
Posting the explanation, without the snark, when someone obviously doesn't "get it" is probably best. The person asking for a source for Charlie Kirk's medical exam obviously "didn't get it".
The person who thought I posted an article about George Floyd obviously wasn't going to respect my time by considering anything I wrote. The person who said I used AI to explain the joke to myself, also wasn't going to respect my time by reading anything I wrote, there was no avoiding their nonsense. They deserved all the snark they got.
Definitely don't do that. I also like to make comments that mix puns and subtle references to niche culture/news wrapped in a dry delivery. But I am also fully aware that almost nobody will get the layered references, and sometimes that results in downvotes. It's worth it when someone gets all the nuance though.
Having not gotten the satire myself (or even recognizing that satire was in play, in which case I might have tried to interpret your comment differently), I took your words literally. That's totally on me as I often miss the cues. But from that perspective the article was genuinely confusing as it seemed unrelated. I could be wrong, but I assume the other commenter was in the same boat as me and not trying to be inconsiderate of your words or time.