TheTechnician27

it’s in the data

Correct, because that’s what official_name means. The US government, one of two countries encircling it, officially calls it “Lake America”. That’s why it’s official_name:en-US specifically, not official_name=. The name= key, the “primary name of the feature in the real world”, remains and will remain “Lake Ontario”.

It’s not the name that is likely to show when viewing the map

I’ll correct you and say that there’s no “likely” about it: it’s not the name that will be shown when viewing the map. That’s the name= key, which is “Lake Ontario”.

I love how “brokethe terms of our contract” still works. Rouxls Kaard out here.

You know, I never really considered automatic anti-vandalism mechanisms we have in place on OpenStreetMap, but they surely exist.

All that to say I think we’re good on OSM too. lol

Dude, come on. Three years is not “many years ago”.

I was referring to how stupid he was for changing the name of an insanely popular household term.

Okay. I un-downvoted, but I think you should consider rewriting, because right now, it reads like you’re calling the new Twitter a Musk grift. That’s not just me; the second-top comment seems to be referring to your comment but politely not mentioning it by name.

As for the grift part, it’s complicated, because on the one hand, it was a bald-faced grift going in where he meant to manipulate the stock market (his repeated attempts to back out prove that). But on the other, having to complete that deal meant he gained control of one of the largest social media networks in the world. And he’s clearly been using that to political ends that are hard to qualify but probably – given the extreme worldwide rise in right-wing authoritarianism – fairly successful.

(Assuming it made a difference getting Trump into office, that $44 billion is probably well paid off through political corruption alone.)

For context for future readers, current comment is just:

“Genius businessman” mmhm. Total grift. Idiot. In any other world he’d be living in a trailer park with trump flags all over his truck, working at Walmart yelling at brown people.

Edit: See comments below

You know, I 100% agree with your assessment of Musk. It’s just that you’re saying this about something that Musk has nothing to do with except actively opposing it. The subheader:

Judge hasn’t ruled on X Corp’s preliminary injunction, but Operation Bluebird plows ahead

It’s such trivial, basic etiquette to read beyond the headline before commenting on the article you’re supposed to be discussing. I’m really sick of wading through comments by lazy assholes who’ve spent more time vomiting out their gut reaction to the headline than just sitting down and reading for 30 seconds.

Reddit was bad about this, but Lemmy is somehow fucking next-level.

• The headline itself is already clear this isn’t Musk’s. Why would the new Twitter be saying Musk gave up the name if it were run by Musk?
• Even if it wasn’t (it is), the subheader is abundantly clear.
• Ars is a solid, well-written source with a good reputation for not wasting waste your time with churnalism or clickbait.

Just running through some common excuses people who refuse to read use to shift their profound, utter laziness onto anyone but themselves.

How big is their team?

If a few paragraphs of reading into the article we’re supposed to be discussing is too much, I’m not sure why you’re here trying to discuss it.

I’m 100% with you. Bad art with genuine effort put into it has a charm of its own. I understand the team’s mistake, but it’s still a mistake.

Please open this article, Ctrl+F down to “% who say the increased use of artificial intelligence in daily life makes them feel …”, and tell me which country is at the very bottom, with 16% “more concerned than excited”, 66% “equally concerned and excited”, and 22% “more excited than concerned”.

It’s like you’re refusing to understand the concept of a cultural barrier.

it’s the AIs fault for not being good enough to hide it.

“if that choice hurt your experience, the fault is not in the tool. It is in our own shortcomings.”

The director literally outright says it’s their fault for using the tool.

And what do you mean “got caught”? It’s very obvious. They mistakenly thought most audiences would enjoy it, not that audiences wouldn’t notice. Which makes sense given the overwhelming difference in the perception of AI between SK and the West. He even outright says he expected people to notice: “I expected some of you would be disappointed by our use of AI. I did not expect it to become this big.”

“The truth is, we spent a long time trying to tell this game’s story with cutscenes made entirely by our own hands,” the statement goes on. “The results were devastating every time. We came to believe we could not properly deliver this game’s complex, difficult narrative that way, and that is why we turned to AI. But if that choice hurt your experience, the fault is not in the tool. It is in our own shortcomings.”

Man, if this is true – that they agonized over the cutscenes but decided they couldn’t and that AI would be better* – then I feel legitimately bad for them.

I went in assuming it was strictly a lazy “ah, fuck it” kind of thing, but even though this still wouldn’t be acceptable, it seems like this team really is hard-working, cared about the final product, and actually did think AI could deliver a good experience. Deluded, but that seems like part of a larger culture of delusion in SK.*

* Notably, the article remarks on how sentiment around AI in South Korea is vastly more positive than e.g. the US.

givessomefucks’ entire job on Lemmy is to spout absolute unhinged nonsense when they have no idea what they’re talking about – but to say it authoritatively enough that people believe them and to never go on the defensive when called out.

It’s completely insane.

So anyway, Stanford Online and MIT OpenCourseware.

this guy is a legend 😂

McAfee, the producer of anti-virus software, used two freely available AI models to test more than 21,000 travel images. One of the models identified 91% of images accurately while the other got 87%. Staff were then asked to replicate the experiment with their own pictures and became uncomfortable with how easy their travels were pinpointed.

There’s no reason a GPT can’t be just as accurate as an expert GeoGuessr player if not moreso, so it checks out.

Oh yeah? Well Russia found a copy of The Sims 3 in a Ukrainian Neptune missile, so now they’re even!

🤓 Point of clarification: primary, secondary, and tertiary sources refer to the proximity to the original information, not to their reliability.

• A primary source would be something like a study on a drug.
• A secondary source would be something like a news article discussing the study or a meta-analysis collating a bunch of studies on that drug.
• A tertiary source would be something like a Wikipedia article or a section of a textbook discussing the drug as a whole.

Secondary and tertiary sources often comprise both the most reliable and unreliable sources. 🤓

(Ik what you meant by “primary” lol)

I appreciate that. I feel like it’s all of our jobs to help each other in this information hurricane where we can; nobody deserves to be punished for not being a strong sailor.

You know, you’re getting downvoted for this, and I get why, but I also think you should’ve been offered a suggestion: RSS feeds. They let you get your news from good, reliable sources that aren’t The Daily Beast talking about “Elon Musk drops SHOCKING new post on X (did he shit his pants??)” Unironically, it’s the best way to keep up with the news bar none. I can even give you personalized suggestions if you’d like.

Your problem is real. Your problem is not your fault. Your solution is understandable. I just think it’s misguided.