375
Charlie Kirk bullet analysis finds no conclusive link to rifle found near scene
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2026
375 points (97.7% liked)
News
36994 readers
2207 users here now
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.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.