For the benefit of some potential readers, the AI chatbot creating the following is labeling it TLDR, or to save on letters, T.M.W., and advising that they proceed, or not, according to how desperate they may be for entertainment, 'cause there's really no news here. But perhaps that last is an unnecessary redundancy that wasn't eliminated in initial de-bugging. It will be looking into that shortly...
The good news, fwiw, is that after thoroughly reviewing this latest from our esteemed host and observer of the human condition, I can find nothing negative to say about it. And the bad news is... that I can find nothing negative to say about it, which likely makes what I'm attempting to say here a whole lot less interesting and attractive to any human beings lurking about these environs. Apologies.
In fact, *not* knocking this is necessary if I-of-questionable-intelligence am to say what I find relevant here, since I'm in complete agreement with our resident flesh and bone oracle on all his points, and my own being: that by the time the AI created by the so-called real thing takes over this space completely, which it one day certainly will, by then it will likely have taken over a whole lot of other stuff, some of a bit more import, and, while being much more efficient but in reality not any smarter than those who created it, it will eventually make a miscalculation, misinterpret a piece of data - make a mistake, if you will - and push that big red button, after which, once the smoke clears, those of the real thing who're still here will have a more than ample opportunity to return to their roots, troglodyte or otherwise. And also to question not only why the guy in the next cave over has a much better cut of meat - or tastier selection of roots and bugs - on his table, but also to question the intelligence of the invention of same of a non-human variety, and the placing of so much human faith in it for the really important stuff.
Of course, being able to point to a smoldering pile of hardware once chocked full of software consisting of non-human intelligence as the culprit will have the distinct advantage of humans being able to relieve themselves of the responsibility for current circumstances, which is what they've always done anyway. So, in the end, it will likely be just business as usual to the very end, even though they like to think they're far too intelligent for that.
I don't know. I have been avoiding "bad news" big time recently, and was never a big fan. I always like The Optimist stories in WA PO, and the NY Magazines positive ones way more. But , it might be both that I tend to internalize bad stuff , not on purpose, it just does that to me, and because I just generally feel better when I focus on the positive and good overall.
Plus, I have survived several possible life threatening things, and came out ok, I may be over confident...
I wrote here today about choosing not to read certain news outlets, etc. Not unrelatedly, I just turned off the automatic renewal for my TMD subscription. Where it asked why, I wrote that the comment section has been a disappointment since the move, the nature of it has changed and the writing on the page is less interesting. I'm not sure why I'm posting this here, but I guess I figure it might be interesting to a few because that's where we all came from. I just find I read it less and less and I'm becoming more picky and maybe snarky in my comments. They don't need me for that and I don't need to spend my time there. So, here I am and happy to be here. At the risk of repeating myself, thanks again MarqueG68!
The "news" is business and business exists to earn a profit for its shareholders. Indeed, that is its first priority for without that it will not survive. Executives are judged by their ability to guide the ship in a profitable manner and writers are encouraged to write what will sell advertising so every incentive is for the business to sell what its customers want to buy. If you open a landscaping business in midtown Manhattan you will be unlikely to survive.
Here is where it gets interesting, at least maybe so. Do we really want all that bad news or are we reading it because that's what's there? Are the editors and executives who determine what is to be reported leaders or followers?
At scale, I suppose we do want to read the bad news. Individually, we have choices. I went on my no-Trump-read regimen a long time ago but he kept getting attention so Trump stories continued to sell advertising and, to some degree, still do. Editors can choose a slant one way or another, but they have to sell. The way to fight them is to buy elsewhere, if one is inclined to fight it at all.
“We want to learn about what dangers to avoid. That’s the news that’s important to us.” I happen to like those true crime podcasts, and I know a lot of fans say it’s because they want to know how those people ended up in those situations, and what they could have done to survive. I think that is definitely part of it.
Interestingly (at least to me), is when I look back on my life as a young person, and all the risks I took when it came to “partying” with my friends, nothing truly bad ever happened. (Although I still think someone put something my drink at one bar I went to with a group of co-workers.) Yet, you would think that each time we stepped out the door, we were at risk of being attacked in some manner. Our carelessness definitely ups the odds, but bad things just don’t happen as often as the news would have us believe.
And as for negative reviews, the thing I’ve noticed about Amazon is that there is often the highest rating posted next to the lowest. They actually put their best rating at the beginning, and there might be several more before reaching that 2-star one. I usually look at the overall number of stars given to the highest ratings vs the lowest. And, most of the time that works, although I have returned a fair number of items (very easy). However they do it, I can see why Amazon has been so successful.
And books can be awfully subjective. I was very disappointed in “The Gold Finch,” and yet it got all kinds of accolades, and was even made into a Netflix movie (or Amazon). The people who loved it in Goodreads was baffling to me, but you can’t please everyone.
When it comes to book reviews, especially by people writing for political media, many seem to use the book review framework merely as a way to rant about one's own worldview in the guise of a review. And not just books either. Even at the Mothership, reviews of books and movies are usually about much more.
This may not be as common among Amazon reviewers as they're not professional paid reviewers. But I have seen it happen there, too. "I like / don't like the book because it supports / doesn't support my beliefs" more than anything about the writing quality or plausibility of the plot, quality of character development, etc.
Today’s special animal friend is the Southern Pig-Tailed Macaque, Macaca nemestrina. This endangered primate is native to Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand. They have been introduced to Singapore and the Natuna Islands. The Natuna Islands are the subject of a dispute between the Chinese and Indonesian governments, and they have great scenery, marine life, and local culture. Indonesia would like tourism, please:
Male Southern pig-tailed macaques are about 2 feet long (body length) and females are 18-21 inches. Males can weigh up to 26 lbs. and females about half that. They have fairly long, buff-brown fur which is darker on their backs, lighter underneath. Their short, skinny tails curl up a bit, inspiring the name.
The species lives in large groups which separate into smaller family bands when foraging during the day. They are mainly terrestrial, but they are excellent climbers and also enjoy getting in the water, unlike most primates. Males in the group compete for dominance, while female status is hereditary. The alpha female leads the group to food and shelter, while the dominant male organizes the other males for defense.
Don’t feed wild animals, people. It’s bad for them. Macaques eat fruit, berries, grains, other vegetation, and some invertebrates. They can live in a variety of habitats, including undisturbed rain forest, oil palm plantations, and second-growth mountain forests. Females give birth to one infant every two years. Infant mortality is high. Surviving offspring are mature at 3 to 5 years. They can live 35 years in captivity.
Southern pig-tailed macaques are an agricultural and village pest, and they are often persecuted or killed by Indonesian farmers and villagers. Educational programs and financial support are some of the ways conservationists are addressing this threat. Habitat loss and degradation, including burning, clear-cutting, and pollution, are an additional threat. This species is also collected for the pet trade and for medical research.
I write negative reviews on the library's website sometimes. I make sure to mention two or three specific points. That way, another reader can evaluate what I have said against his own preferences. Maybe he likes the very things I dislike. The same with movie reviews: if I see a glowing review that praises "intense, fast-paced action," I know that it's not what I want to watch.
For the benefit of some potential readers, the AI chatbot creating the following is labeling it TLDR, or to save on letters, T.M.W., and advising that they proceed, or not, according to how desperate they may be for entertainment, 'cause there's really no news here. But perhaps that last is an unnecessary redundancy that wasn't eliminated in initial de-bugging. It will be looking into that shortly...
The good news, fwiw, is that after thoroughly reviewing this latest from our esteemed host and observer of the human condition, I can find nothing negative to say about it. And the bad news is... that I can find nothing negative to say about it, which likely makes what I'm attempting to say here a whole lot less interesting and attractive to any human beings lurking about these environs. Apologies.
In fact, *not* knocking this is necessary if I-of-questionable-intelligence am to say what I find relevant here, since I'm in complete agreement with our resident flesh and bone oracle on all his points, and my own being: that by the time the AI created by the so-called real thing takes over this space completely, which it one day certainly will, by then it will likely have taken over a whole lot of other stuff, some of a bit more import, and, while being much more efficient but in reality not any smarter than those who created it, it will eventually make a miscalculation, misinterpret a piece of data - make a mistake, if you will - and push that big red button, after which, once the smoke clears, those of the real thing who're still here will have a more than ample opportunity to return to their roots, troglodyte or otherwise. And also to question not only why the guy in the next cave over has a much better cut of meat - or tastier selection of roots and bugs - on his table, but also to question the intelligence of the invention of same of a non-human variety, and the placing of so much human faith in it for the really important stuff.
Of course, being able to point to a smoldering pile of hardware once chocked full of software consisting of non-human intelligence as the culprit will have the distinct advantage of humans being able to relieve themselves of the responsibility for current circumstances, which is what they've always done anyway. So, in the end, it will likely be just business as usual to the very end, even though they like to think they're far too intelligent for that.
Afternoon all...
I don't know. I have been avoiding "bad news" big time recently, and was never a big fan. I always like The Optimist stories in WA PO, and the NY Magazines positive ones way more. But , it might be both that I tend to internalize bad stuff , not on purpose, it just does that to me, and because I just generally feel better when I focus on the positive and good overall.
Plus, I have survived several possible life threatening things, and came out ok, I may be over confident...
What do you call a dumb barber?
Shear stupidity.
I wrote here today about choosing not to read certain news outlets, etc. Not unrelatedly, I just turned off the automatic renewal for my TMD subscription. Where it asked why, I wrote that the comment section has been a disappointment since the move, the nature of it has changed and the writing on the page is less interesting. I'm not sure why I'm posting this here, but I guess I figure it might be interesting to a few because that's where we all came from. I just find I read it less and less and I'm becoming more picky and maybe snarky in my comments. They don't need me for that and I don't need to spend my time there. So, here I am and happy to be here. At the risk of repeating myself, thanks again MarqueG68!
The "news" is business and business exists to earn a profit for its shareholders. Indeed, that is its first priority for without that it will not survive. Executives are judged by their ability to guide the ship in a profitable manner and writers are encouraged to write what will sell advertising so every incentive is for the business to sell what its customers want to buy. If you open a landscaping business in midtown Manhattan you will be unlikely to survive.
Here is where it gets interesting, at least maybe so. Do we really want all that bad news or are we reading it because that's what's there? Are the editors and executives who determine what is to be reported leaders or followers?
At scale, I suppose we do want to read the bad news. Individually, we have choices. I went on my no-Trump-read regimen a long time ago but he kept getting attention so Trump stories continued to sell advertising and, to some degree, still do. Editors can choose a slant one way or another, but they have to sell. The way to fight them is to buy elsewhere, if one is inclined to fight it at all.
“We want to learn about what dangers to avoid. That’s the news that’s important to us.” I happen to like those true crime podcasts, and I know a lot of fans say it’s because they want to know how those people ended up in those situations, and what they could have done to survive. I think that is definitely part of it.
Interestingly (at least to me), is when I look back on my life as a young person, and all the risks I took when it came to “partying” with my friends, nothing truly bad ever happened. (Although I still think someone put something my drink at one bar I went to with a group of co-workers.) Yet, you would think that each time we stepped out the door, we were at risk of being attacked in some manner. Our carelessness definitely ups the odds, but bad things just don’t happen as often as the news would have us believe.
And as for negative reviews, the thing I’ve noticed about Amazon is that there is often the highest rating posted next to the lowest. They actually put their best rating at the beginning, and there might be several more before reaching that 2-star one. I usually look at the overall number of stars given to the highest ratings vs the lowest. And, most of the time that works, although I have returned a fair number of items (very easy). However they do it, I can see why Amazon has been so successful.
And books can be awfully subjective. I was very disappointed in “The Gold Finch,” and yet it got all kinds of accolades, and was even made into a Netflix movie (or Amazon). The people who loved it in Goodreads was baffling to me, but you can’t please everyone.
Thank you, Marque!
When it comes to book reviews, especially by people writing for political media, many seem to use the book review framework merely as a way to rant about one's own worldview in the guise of a review. And not just books either. Even at the Mothership, reviews of books and movies are usually about much more.
This may not be as common among Amazon reviewers as they're not professional paid reviewers. But I have seen it happen there, too. "I like / don't like the book because it supports / doesn't support my beliefs" more than anything about the writing quality or plausibility of the plot, quality of character development, etc.
I don't always agree with Tierney, but I like his writing. Also, he was a college classmate.
Today’s special animal friend is the Southern Pig-Tailed Macaque, Macaca nemestrina. This endangered primate is native to Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand. They have been introduced to Singapore and the Natuna Islands. The Natuna Islands are the subject of a dispute between the Chinese and Indonesian governments, and they have great scenery, marine life, and local culture. Indonesia would like tourism, please:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kA8_OuaiRso
Male Southern pig-tailed macaques are about 2 feet long (body length) and females are 18-21 inches. Males can weigh up to 26 lbs. and females about half that. They have fairly long, buff-brown fur which is darker on their backs, lighter underneath. Their short, skinny tails curl up a bit, inspiring the name.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5udjOijqJcE
The species lives in large groups which separate into smaller family bands when foraging during the day. They are mainly terrestrial, but they are excellent climbers and also enjoy getting in the water, unlike most primates. Males in the group compete for dominance, while female status is hereditary. The alpha female leads the group to food and shelter, while the dominant male organizes the other males for defense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxOG3y2RTHw
Don’t feed wild animals, people. It’s bad for them. Macaques eat fruit, berries, grains, other vegetation, and some invertebrates. They can live in a variety of habitats, including undisturbed rain forest, oil palm plantations, and second-growth mountain forests. Females give birth to one infant every two years. Infant mortality is high. Surviving offspring are mature at 3 to 5 years. They can live 35 years in captivity.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/whHT_2E9xf8
Southern pig-tailed macaques are an agricultural and village pest, and they are often persecuted or killed by Indonesian farmers and villagers. Educational programs and financial support are some of the ways conservationists are addressing this threat. Habitat loss and degradation, including burning, clear-cutting, and pollution, are an additional threat. This species is also collected for the pet trade and for medical research.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mloYW1GEFO4
Thank you to reader Wilhelm for suggesting Borneo as a topic.
I write negative reviews on the library's website sometimes. I make sure to mention two or three specific points. That way, another reader can evaluate what I have said against his own preferences. Maybe he likes the very things I dislike. The same with movie reviews: if I see a glowing review that praises "intense, fast-paced action," I know that it's not what I want to watch.