Not really. I was being sarcastic, but the overall goal is to improve the quality of the discussion, not detract. I was curious how UniversalMonk would respond, but he's chosen not to, so there's not much I can do.

I haven't played around with GPT o1; I just checked, and I don't have access. I'm not saying it's necessarily bad without having experienced it. But OpenAI has been getting steadily worse for a while, so I'm assuming that the stuff I've interacted with is indicative of the quality of the new stuff. It's all of a piece.

I've done something like this, with RSS feeds. Read !meta@rss.ponder.cat to see the existing communities, and how to add a feed to an existing community.

The concern about spam is real. A lot of these exist, for example one for Hacker News and a whole instance for Reddit, and a lot of people including myself don't like those. I agree with you that it's a good idea but it's necessary to be careful that it remains a useful seed of content and not an overwhelming spew.

A Trump win, on the other hand, could cause shocks. Transactional in his foreign policy outlook, Trump has long argued that the NATO alliance is a bad deal for the United States, and many of his advisers urge the U.S. to redirect its resources to competing with China. While full withdrawal from NATO is unlikely, a Trump administration could trim U.S. commitments to Europe’s defence, while boosting the morale of far-right European politicians working against a stronger, more integrated Europe.

This is outlandish sanewashing.

Let me try:

A Trump win, on the other hand, could cause an unmitigated global catastrophe unprecedented in modern history. Openly violent and depraved, Trump has long allied himself with several of the worst people in the world, notably including Vladimir Putin, and would do his best to destroy NATO completely while giving overt assistance to forces which are actively hostile to anything European. While full withdrawal from NATO is one possible outcome, the damage would be by no means limited to simple, predictable changes like that. Trump is so unhinged that there is virtually no economic, military, or diplomatic disaster that would be off the table, were he to win a second term.

It might not end the Gaza genocide. It will also not cure cancer, end climate change, or stop political violence in the United States. However, electing Harris will produce a hugely better outcome on all of those fronts than will electing Trump.

If you care about the Palestinian people, and you’re risking Trump getting into power again, you don’t actually care about the Palestinian people. You just enjoy grandstanding gestures, and while you’re making your gestures, you’re flirting with making their already horrifying situation absolutely infinitely worse.

You can use Creative Commons. You'll still have the copyright to the work, so you can relicense it or do whatever you like with it, but they'll have a particular and proscribed set of things they are guaranteed to be able to do with it into perpetuity.

Choose whichever license suits what you'd like to be able to grant them, in terms of whether they have to credit you for it, whether they're allowed to modify it, and so on. CC BY lets them do whatever they want, as long as they credit you, which is a common permissive option.

What are you talking about? I just tried two test queries on DDG, and neither one had LLM-generated nonsense, and the one that was in double-quotes returned only five results, all of which had the double-quoted phrase and one of which was the thing I was challenging it to find.

Can you give an example of a query where DDG returns LLM results or doesn't respect your double-quotes?

Nah. You have to follow your own style.

Bertrand Russel had his own style, and it's complete, formal, heartfelt and true. If he tried to add a bunch of cursing to it, it would become inauthentic, just as it would if someone whose natural mode is to start cursing and punching decided to try to talk like Bertrand Russel. Everyone's got their voice.

For an equally complete, formal, heartfelt and true example which does include cursing, see:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cleveland-browns-letters/

You need to check directly on lemmy.world, since not everything will be federated to your instance:

https://lemmy.world/u/UniversalMonk

They have 1.69k posts and 3.75k comments.

For some reason, almost all of their activity is during non-working hours in a US time zone. They have bursts of activity in the morning, during a short window in the middle of the day that could be a lunch break, in the evening, and around the clock on weekends. We're currently in their morning burst, and then there will be a lull, and then there will be another short intense burst around lunchtime.

It's very unusual. What I mean by that is that posting only outside work hours is pretty normal, but the absolute firehose of activity every day during any non-work hours including lunch is abnormal. From outward appearances, it looks like a person who has a full-time job but devotes almost all of their waking hours outside that job to shitposting at full speed on Lemmy about Jill Stein.

Rule 7 on !world@lemmy.world says:

We didn’t USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you’re posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

Just like choosing not to brush your teeth doesn't change the necessity of dental hygiene

choosing to vote third party isn’t ignoring reality

You're so close to getting it. Millimeters away.

I didn't especially "want" to brush my teeth last night, but I did anyway. Because I know that the alternative is opening up the door to things I don't want, even more than I don't want to brush my teeth.

If someone woke up and said, I'm proud I didn't brush my teeth, because I didn't want to, I would have trouble looking at them as a source of wisdom about how to accomplish the goals they're trying to pursue.

~~in Ohio~~

If you want your vote to count, you're going to need to vote for one of the major party candidates.

If you want to move towards a future where third-party candidates are viable, you need to support RCV, so that they can get electoral support without producing the opposite impact on the election that is intended. And then, vote for one of the major party candidates this time, ideally the one who won't destroy the machinery of democracy which we will need in future elections to enact RCV, or elect Green Party people or Democrats.

If you wanted to mark the box for Jill Stein and accomplish nothing, you can still do that. Nothing has changed. I don't recommend it, but it's definitely still possible.