Are you trying to say that dozens of millions of people in one specific country went nazi because of teenage rebelliousness, ignorance and neural disfunction?
A combined subliminal and supraliminal message generator for use with a television receiver permits complete control of subliminal messages and their manner of presentation.
This is a very romanticized version of American intervention in WW2.
The bitter truth is that we had guys with Nazis war trophies back home who were waving Confederate flags the year after their deployment ended. Hell, we had guys like Mark Fuhrman, who were decorated detectives in the LAPD back in the early 90s with a naked well-established fetish for European fascism. And that's before you get into the Ratlines that imported thousands of Nazis into Latin America under cover of the CIA and Opus Dei.
This isn't something that got lost in translation or distorted through history. It's a direct consequence of American fascism reproducing itself in America as an outcropping of American tendencies.
The Stars and Stripes is as much a symbol of fascist oppression in Vietnam and Indonesia and the DRC and the Oklahoma Reservation system as any German flag.
This really overstates the US opposition to the Nazis and understates the role the US played in cementing former Nazis in key roles around the world, including the US. The US was never anti-fascist just like the US has never been anti-Capitalist, the US's involvement in World War II was late, and for the purpose of profit. Lend-lease was one mechanism, and solidifying its position as the only major allied power not devastated by World War II, it could transfer into the position of unquestioned global Hegemon. It couldn't let the Soviet Union take all of the credit for winning World War II (or the Great Patriotic War, in the former USSR), as that would have challenged US legitimacy in the post-war world.
In reality, fascism and liberalism are both superstructural elements of Capitalism, in different conditions and contexts. When class struggle is heightened, and Capitalism in utter decay with the bourgeoisie in need of violence to retain their hold on society, the mask of liberalism falls to reveal the ugly face of fascism. When Capitalism puts the mask back on, it pretends as its liberal self it is distinct and opposed to its unmasked self.
The US praised the Nazis for killing the communists. They supported their "cause" riiiiight up until they started attacking western Europe AKA the countries that actually matter.
The US also hired tons of Nazi "scientists," including granting them immunity for their roles in the Holocaust. They also granted the head of Unit 731 immunity (specifically from the USSR who rightly wanted him executed) in exchange for the human experimentation data. NATO coincidentally also has a ton of Nazis in its leadership.
The US went as far as installing prominent Nazi figures back into West Germany in the same way they let confederates go back to their lives after the civil war. Whereas the Soviets executed Nazi leaders in East Germany because that's what they fucking deserve. The US then claimed that the executed Nazis were victims of communism and included them in their "communism death toll" numbers.
This isn't an error. The US has always been sympathetic to Nazis, before, during, and after the war. They only begrudgingly pitched in against them because they viewed western Europe as slightly more important.
Finally, the US didn't even fucking do that much. Certainly nowhere near enough to justify their claim that they "saved the world" in WWII. The USSR and UK each did far more yet the US seems to think the USSR was fighting for the Nazis and the UK was a scared poodle hiding in their island until the heroic Americans came to save them, when in reality, the tide had already turned against the Nazis by the time the US joined. They also nuked Japan just because they could, it had nothing to do with the war because they already had intelligence that Japan was about to surrender.
Which might be understandable if they were lowly conscripted soldiers, but the ones that got into NATO were high ranking officers and other leaders in the Nazi party, many of whom architected the Holocaust.
It takes years and a ton of personal effort and commitmemt to climb the ranks of any military or party. Even if you did get conscripted, why did you keep going?
"Help I'm being forced to use my own cruelty and demonic propensity for making people suffer to organize a genocide after I spent years proving that I was the right person for the job! My only hope is if a peaceful, civilized, Western military alliance hires me once this ordeal that I'm in no way enjoying or benefiting from is over!"
Minor correction: the US nuked Japan so the Soviets couldn't be credited for Japan's surrender as well as Nazi Germany. It was a calculated move by the US to murder hundreds of thousands of civilians just so that Socialism wouldn't spread as much as it could have after the war due to the Soviets saving the world. The US paid the price of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilian lives in order to benefit its own standing after the war.
The Red Army was responsible for 90% of Nazi deaths, and took Berlin. The Soviet Union paid by far the biggest price in winning World War II, and was by far the most responsible for ending it. I'm not going to apologize for being a Marxist, it sounds like you wished the other side won World War II.
"Tankie" is just a pejorative for Marxist, though, like "commie" or "pinko." Marxism is "authoritarian" in that it expressly calls for flipping the Capitalist dictatorship of the bourgeoisie into the Socialist dictatorship of the proletariat, ie turning from a society where the Capitalists are oppressing the working class via the state into a society where the working class wields the state against the Capitalists.
This isn't a real "dictatorship" in the modern sense, but a descriptor for where the balance of power lies, in the working class or Capitalist class, via Public ownership or Private ownership being primary. Socialism is still democratic, but will use the power of the state against the bourgeoisie. All states are authoritarian, what matters is which class is in control of the authority, and how we can move beyond class and thus the state.
Marxism is a branch of Socialism. The other major branch is Anarchism, and both Marxism and Anarchism have many sub-branches. For example, I am a Marxist-Leninist, which is generally the ideology guiding Cuba, the PRC, former USSR, etc. These are not "corrupted," they are real and thus face real problems that systems that only exist in the minds of dreamers don't have to. Marx would scoff at such dreamers that let perfection be the enemy of progress. I have an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list you can check out, if you are curious and want to glance through it to get an idea of what Marxism-Leninism is all about.
Secondly, Animal Farm. If you have the time, I think it would be worth reading A Critical Read of Animal Farm by Jones Manoel, and On Orwell by Roderic Day. Animal Farm is a work of fiction, written by an anti-Marxist Socialist. Orwell worked directly with British Intelligence to out Socialists and Communists, and kept a list of people he suspected were Jewish, due to his anti-semetism.
Orwell is magnified by Western Countries because he's useful, he's someone that at least pretends to be Left but spent more time attacking the Left than anything. Even his comrades in arms in Spain, when he fought alongside the Anarchists against the fascists, questioned why he wasn't fighting on the other side. Animal Farm is chiefly a story about how the Russian Working Class was stupid and illiterate, and thus destined to be taken advantage of and could never hope to understand Marxism. Orwell spends an absurd amount of time describing just how stupid the non-pigs are, as describing poor, working folk as incapable of knowing their own interests is his critique.
As for corruption, Marxist Socialism solves it with recall elections and broader extension of democratic input. Democracy in the workplace is utter fantasy in Capitalism, but is very real in Socialist countries. Even if this democracy often is flawed, and runs into the real problems that real, existing systems run into just like any other, it still forms a higher degree of public control.
Let us broach a polemical subject. The British author George Orwell is very well known for works such as Animal Farm, Nineteen Eighty-Four, and his book about the Spanish Civil War, Homage to Catalonia.
It's time to read theory, comrades! As Lenin says, "Despair is typical of those who do not understand the causes of evil, see no way out, and are incapable of struggle." Reading theory helps us identify the core contradictions within modern society, analyze their trajectories, and gives us the tools to break free. Marxism-Leninism is broken into 3 major components, as noted by Lenin in his pamphlet The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism: | Audiobook
Dialectical and Historical Materialism
Critique of Capitalism along the lines of Marx's Law of Value
Advocacy for Revolutionary and Scientific Socialism
As such, I created the following list to take you from no knowledge whatsoever of Leftist theory, and leave you with a strong understanding of the critical fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism in an order that builds up as you read. Let's get started!
Section I: Getting Started
What the heck is Communism, anyways? For that matter, what is fascism?
Breaks down fascism and its mortal enemy, Communism, as well as their antagonistic relationship. Understanding what fascism is, where and when it rises, why it does so, and how to banish it forever is critical. Parenti also helps debunk common anti-Communist myths, from both the "left" and the right, in a quick-witted writing style. This is also an excellent time to watch the famous speech.
Section II: Historical and Dialectical Materialism
By far my favorite primer on Marxist philosophy. By understanding Dialectical and Historical Materialism first, you make it easier to understand the rest of Marxism-Leninism. Don't be intimidated!
Further reading on Dialectical and Historical Materialism, but crucially introduces the why of Scientific Socialism, explaining how Capitalism itself prepares the conditions for public ownership and planning by centralizing itself into monopolist syndicates. This is also where Engels talks about the failures of previous "Utopian" Socialists.
Section III: Political Economy
That's right, it's time for the Law of Value and a deep-dive into Imperialism. If we are to defeat Capitalism, we must learn it's mechanisms, tendencies, contradictions, and laws.
Best taken as a pair, these essays simplify the most important parts of the Law of Value. Marx is targetting those not trained in economics here, but you might want to keep a pen and some paper to follow along if you are a visual person.
Absolutely crucial and the most important work for understanding the modern era and its primary contradictions. Marxist-Leninists understand that Imperialism is the greatest contradiction in the modern era, which cascades downward into all manner of related contradictions. Knowing what dying Capitalism looks like, and how it behaves, means we can kill it.
Section IV: Revolutionary and Scientific Socialism
Can we defeat Capitalism at the ballot box? What about just defeating fascism? What about the role of the state?
If Marxists believed reforming Capitalist society was possible, we would be the first in line for it. Sadly, it isn't possible, which Luxemburg proves in this monumental writing.
Excellent refutation of revisionists and Social Democrats who think the State can be reformed, without needing to be replaced with one that is run by the workers, in their own interests.
Section V: Intersectionality and Solidarity
The revolution will not be fought by atomized individuals, but by an intersectional, international working class movement. Intersectionality is critical, because it allows different marginalized groups to work together in collective interest, unifying into a broad movement.
Critical reading on understanding misogyny, transphobia, enbyphobia, pluralphobia, and homophobia, as well as how to move beyond the base subject of "gender." Uses the foundations built up in the previous works to analyze gender theory from a Historical Materialist perspective.
De-colonialism is essential to Marxism. Without having a strong, de-colonial, internationalist stance, we have no path to victory nor a path to justice. Fanon analyzes Colonialism's dehumanizing effects, and lays out how to form a de-colonial movement, as well as its necessity.
Solidarity and intersectionality are the key to any social movement. When different social groups fight for liberation together along intersectional lines, the movements are emboldened and empowered ever-further.
Section VI: Putting it into Practice!
It's not enough to endlessly read, you must put theory to practice. That is how you can improve yourself and the movements you support. Touch grass!
Mao wrote simply and directly, targeting peasant soldiers during the Revolutionary War in China. This pair of essays equip the reader with the ability to apply the analytical tools of Dialectical Materialism to their every day practice, and better understand problems.
Congratulations, you completed your introductory reading course!
With your new understanding and knowledge of Marxism-Leninism, here is a mini What is to be Done? of your own to follow, and take with you as practical advice.
Get organized. Join a Leftist org, find solidarity with fellow comrades, and protect each other. The Dems will not save you, it is up to us to protect ourselves. The Party for Socialism and Liberation and Freedom Road Socialist Organization both organize year round, every year, because the battle for progress is a constant struggle, not a single election. See if there is a chapter near you, or start one! Or, see if there's an org you like more near you and join it.
Read theory. Don't think that you are done now! Just because you have the basics, doesn't mean you know more than you do. If you have not investigated a subject, don't speak on it! Don't speak nonsense, but listen!
Aggressively combat white supremacy, misogyny, queerphobia, and other attacks on marginalized communities. Cede no ground, let nobody be forgotten or left behind. There is strength in numbers, when one marginalized group is targeted, many more are sure to follow.
Be industrious, and self-sufficient. Take up gardening, home repair, tinkering. It is through practice that you elevate your problem-solving capabilities. Not only will you improve your skill at one subject, but your general problem-solving muscles get strengthened as well.
Learn self-defense. Get armed, if practical. Be ready to protect yourself and others. Liberals will not save us, we must save each other.
Be persistent. If you feel like a single water droplet against a mountain, think of canyons and valleys. Oh, how our efforts pile up! With consistency, every rock, boulder, even mountain, can be drilled through with nothing but steady and persistent water droplets.
"Everything under heaven is in utter chaos; the situation is excellent."
Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO) is a national organization of revolutionaries fighting for socialism in the United States. Our home is in the working class.
Again, "Tankie" is a pejorative for Marxist in the same vein as "commie" and "pinko." All 3 were used against Communists historically, though pinko seems to have fallen out of fashion.
That is reductionist and overly simplistic. Just because they are all pejorative does not mean their meaning is identical. Not all communists are “tankies.”
(But I know very well we need to agree to disagree on this, because I don’t think there’s any value in trying to convince you.)
Their meaning, historically, has been identical. All 3 have been used against the same Communist parties, the same supporters of Actually Existing Socialism, the same Marxists. Personally, I see the desire among some left individuals to drive a wedge between the "tankies" and the "true/good/real Marxists" as a way for these people to shut down uncomfortable conversations with the overwhelming majority of Marxists around the world.
This process splits the "Marxists" that oppose AES, or advocate for reform over revolution, or support the Nordic Model, etc from the "evil" Marxists, the ones who support revolution, AES, and oppose Western Imperialism, giving a pass to the former because the former supports the status quo, which benefits Western Imperialism. Even if the overwhelming majority of practicing Marxists fit into the latter category, the former category are elevated in the West for their utility in supporting the system.
What this creates in the minds of those who think "tankie" isn't a pejorative for Marxists is utter distortion of the real viewpoints and real stances of Marxists. The "good" aspects of Marxism get pushed onto the Western supporting "Marxists," and a strawman is built up for the evil "tankies" that ends up being a mixture of interpreting genuine Marxist analysis in a negative light with absurd contradictions that don't really exist.
I don't think I'll convince you, either, but it's important for me to respond so that onlookers can at least see both points of view on the matter.
Soviets where with the Nazis at the beginning of the war. Then when they got attacked they damn near lost their capital. Without lend lease they would have crumbled. Then when the war ended they fucked over a bunch of countries that didn't want to be in the USSR. They did a bunch of work by sending millions to be cannon food.
The Soviets were never "with the Nazis." The Soviets spent years trying to get the West to form an allied pact against the Nazis, insteas the West gave the Nazis Czechoslovakia. The non-aggression pact was paid to buy time, as the USSR was a developing country and Germany a more developed one. Nazism and Communism are diametrically opposed and cannot coexist, in the years of the Nazis rise the Nazis murdered the Communists in Germany first, and the Soviets were constantly warning about the Nazi threat.
The surprise attack by the Nazis was swift, brutal, and with genocidal intent. They took land quickly, but were pushed back into a stalemate, and then rapidly the Nazi line collapsed. Lend-Lease equipment arrived after the Red Army had stabilized, it certainly helped but was not critical to the success of the Red Army, they weren't crumbling. Repeating Goebbels "Russian hordes" anti-Slavic racist talking points doesn't help you either, there are no records of "wave tactics" as was reported by the Nazis. Those records came largely from pre-Soviet Russian tactics, not the tactics of the Red Army.
They didn't "fuck over" a bunch of countries either.
There were also 400,000 soldiers who died fighting fascists under the US flag, who were not responsible for their government's decisions regarding the use of nuclear weapons, nor Operation Paperclip, nor any other major government decisions.
I'm aware, and am not trying to downplay that. My comment was about the US gov's decision to bomb Japan, not to downplay the lives given by US soldiers in the fight against the Nazis.
I hear you, I just feel like the meme was about the ordinary soldiers rather than the government. Fully respect wanting to correct the record regarding the government, just felt it was worth a reminder that there were people like the soldier in the meme who did sacrifice a lot fighting for a worthy cause and who do deserve respect, and our criticism of the government shouldn't overshadow that. Just a small pushback on that, but one I felt was important.
That's a fair point to push back on. It wasn't my intention to downplay the many brave US soldiers involved who were genuinely antifascist, but if my comments gave off that impression, then it's good that you spoke up. My main critique of this comic isn't even with the US, but with how (in my view) it treats liberalism and fascism as distinct, and not as the twins I understand them to be. The ending of the comic gives the impression that the former US was a bastion of antifascism and the modern US failed to get the memo, but the reality is that the fascists were always there, and the anti-fascists too. I wanted to add more materialism to the picture, and if in doing so I accidentally downplayed the role of the brave antifascists in the US Army that gave their lives fighting the Nazis, then I made my point poorly.
I think I see your point a bit more, I didn't really think about the implications of American fascism being a new thing. Also didn't want to single you out or anything.
Oh, it wasn't because of the fanatical dedication of the Japanese armed forces that were so dug in it would have taken years and cost thousands of American lives to defeat them, island by island? It was because they didn't want the Russians to hog all the glory? Never heard that one before
On August 9th, the Soviets invaded Japanese-controlled Manchuria, and Japan announced surrender on August 15th. The nukes were launched on the 6th and 9th of August, because the US didn't want Japan to go Soviet, the US had plans of reforming Imperial Japan as a subsidiary Empire, maintaining Japan's colonization of Korea and other Asian countries while profiting off of Japan, in a form of double Imperialism, and a Soviet Japan wouldn't let that work. Their plan was thrown to dust with the Korean War that followed.
While publicly stating their intent to fight on to the bitter end, Japan's leaders (the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War, also known as the "Big Six") were privately making entreaties to the publicly neutral Soviet Union to mediate peace on terms more favorable to the Japanese. While maintaining a sufficient level of diplomatic engagement with the Japanese to give them the impression they might be willing to mediate, the Soviets were covertly preparing to attack Japanese forces in Manchuria and Korea (in addition to South Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands) in fulfillment of promises they had secretly made to the US and the UK at the Tehran and Yalta Conferences.
the first bomb was dropped on 6 August, the Soviet Union declared war on the 8th. But contrary to American expectations and post-war claims, the author’s diligent research in the Japanese sources demonstrates conclusively that it was the Soviet declaration of war, not the atomic bombs, that forced the Japanese to surrender unconditionally.
While technically true, there were plenty of affiliated fascist organisations around the world who openly paraded their nazi sympathies in public. Oswald Mosely and his British Union of Fascists spring to mind.
I know, see Operation Paperclip and I also know that the end of the nazi Germany is mainly thanks to Rusia and allies, US entered when the main task was already done. Without the French and British resistance, USA couldn't even have managed to enter Germany.
They also granted the head of Unit 731 immunity (specifically from the USSR who rightly wanted him executed) in exchange for the human experimentation data.
"Experimentation" data that was entirely useless, if I remember correctly.
Zionism is anti-semetic, ironically. The Zionists were anti-Yiddish and collaborated with the Nazis (yes, you're reading this right). Further, the Zionist mythos depends on fostering anti-semetism abroad, so that there seems to be legitimacy in having a "safe country for Jewish peoples," even if that country is a genocidal settler-colony.
Zionism is the one thing where anti-semites and Jews (at least zionist Jews) agree.
Zionist Jews want it because it gives them their own country where they are not persecuted.
Anti-semites want it, because it means that the Jews are not in their country.
That's why even the literal Nazis supported zionism. Every Jew in Israel was one less Jew in Germany.
You get the same thing still today with the most right-wing politicians supporting Zionism/Israel. On the one hand because it's a way to keep Jews far away and on the other hand because it can be used as a "I'm supporting Israel, so surely I can't be a Nazi. Anyway, let's go shoot some Muslims."-kind of excuse.
(#47 in the series Palestine Essays by the Palestine Liberation Organization Research Center.) CONTENTS Introduction Chapter I. The Early Zionist Attitude to...
The Nazi eugenics program was also strongly inspired by what the US was doing at the time.
It's just that the Nazi went a bit too far, too obvious (and mainly they lost the war). It was one of the arguments of the defense in the Nuremberg trial that the German eugenics differed little from what was practiced in the US.
I gotta push back against the criticism that several of my comrades in here are expressing. Y'all are talking about the US collaborating with Nazis after the war, and you're not wrong about that, but that was the US government, while this meme is about a soldier. The soldiers on the ground fought for all sorts of reasons, they might have opposed the Nazis for all sorts of ideological reasons, or they might have just been doing it out of loyalty, or any of the other reasons soldiers fight. But there were people on the ground fighting the Nazis under a US flag who were committed antifascists and even communists. As for the others, whatever their reasons, when the call came to save the world from fascism, they answered, and were willing to sacrifice life and limb to do it. That's pretty heroic if you ask me. And they weren't the ones who made the decision to let Nazis into NATO and stuff afterwards.
I understand the defensiveness against attempts to glorify the US while villifying the USSR and downplay their (more substantial) sacrifice and contribution to the war. But there's nothing in this meme that's doing that, and there were Americans who contributed to the war effort. Is it necessary to kneejerk react to a meme celebrating someone who fought the Nazis by talking about the government that ruled over them? People aren't defined by their nation or their government.
Let's not forget the proud tradition of people like , who explicitly tied the war effort to a broader idea of antifascism, nor of the people on the front lines who he inspired.
Profitez des vidéos et de la musique que vous aimez, mettez en ligne des contenus originaux, et partagez-les avec vos amis, vos proches et le monde entier.
OP's post is about fortnite, the top commenter of this comment chain added on a link about Twitter. Both are about a supposedly popular thing being overwhelmingly just full of bots. What's not to get?
Bots in Fortnite are no secret but it really has gotten bad, huh? I remember trying the game out some years ago, was annoyed by the obvious bots in my games and never touched it again after one session. Things must've gotten more downhill since.
Funny thing is, even if your skills were in the bracket for more human weighted matches, you’d not have hit them in your first few sessions. The first few matches are always 100% bots to give you a feeling for the game without the rick of being steam rolled by humans.
There’s also the problem of matches being 100 people and not starting until it hits about that number. Imagine the fun of sitting and waiting for 10 minutes for people to hop on.
I never even played fortnite, but i watched some videos on it, and it's pretty weird. I can just assume it's for children who don't care because they don't know and actually have a chance playing and winning. Marvel rivals put you in pity matches after you lost a game or two and it's ridiculous. It's just a waste of time. But even if the bots are so obvious, there are still teammates that go: let's go guys, we got this. They have a combined 3 kills and we have like 30 each. There is no reason playing this.
Back in the day we dreamed of games with large war zones and hundred of people. Sadly, technology wasn't advanced enough. So we would have bits running around everywhere. Simpler times😂
Bots were a big reason why I didn't continue playing Naraka. A battle royale that has bots is just awful. I'd rather have long queues than a BR lobby with a handful of people.
Quantum computers pose a threat to Bitcoin’s security. Developers are rushing to future-proof the network. Michael Saylor is unconvinced this is a problem.
At the same time, the hope is that Russian society would come out en masse against Russian President Putin and dispose of him from power.
Theory that Russia will collapse relies on hoping that Russians don't understand the existential threat of NATO expansion, and NATO hatred of them, AND all Russian power brokers will start believing NATO disinformation, AND risk of losing war will motivate Russians to surrender to Ukraine/NATO.
Instead, any Russian regime change is likely to be caused by Putin weakness and failure to nuke German and UK US military bases. Or otherwise perception of insufficient aggression/speed of progress.
Exactly, the only actual criticism of Putin in Russia is that he's being too soft with the west. If Putin is somehow ousted from power, then it would almost certainly be by somebody far more hardline like Medvedev. The whole notion of regime change as a path towards defeating Russia is fundamentally rooted in lack of basic understanding of the political situation in Russia.
A lawsuit disputing the results of the 2024 election has moved forward after it was revealed that former Vice President Kamala Harris received no votes a New York county.
Statistically it is very unlikely this would happen given the votes for other Democrats down ticket. It would be like betting on an old horse to win a race and somehow winning.
Also from a technical and logistics perspective, Russia already hacked into a variety of polling stations over the last few years and did seemingly nothing but gather information and plan. Technically this isn't hard or even expensive.
Trump said months before the election that he's got it covered and he isn't worried about it. Why would that be? He told us what he was doing at the time, his people were rigging it.
I also strongly believe in their use of projecting as a preemptive defensive strategy.
They say "you cheated you cheated you cheated!" so we reply "you're nuts there's no evidence, it's all a conspiracy theory" so then they can cheat later on and turn it around on you when you go to investigate. "Oh now it's true because you lost? Yeah yeah yeah..."
They're always playing psychological warfare with the population... 🙁
They already believe it's happening to them which is why they refuse to listen to any source of information that isn't from their preferred brand.
There are plenty of intelligent MAGA that just have an innate bias that they want to have confimed so they allow themselves to be convinced by mis/disinformation. To admit you were wrong, or to accept that you misunderstood actually creates a "pain" type response that people are very adverse to, there are also the types that have so entrenched themselves in their political beliefs that it becomes their identity. This form of physiological warfare I mentioned is just one way of allowing these people to maintain their identity and to give them a "valid" defense against inconvenient information.
Over time a person can be chipped away at, but if you always give them an answer then they never have to suffer the thought that they were ever wrong about anything so they can remain on "your side."
A strongmen is elected for seeming strong. Of course he will say beforehand that he is certain that he will win. Saying anything else would harm is brand and make less people vote for him. Trump claiming to be successful at anything and everything also isn't something new for him. He did that his entire (adult) life.
This is evidence for Trump being a narcissist and liar, but with the amount of lies, delusional and nonsensical claims he makes, this can be hardly taken as evidence for election fraud.
He knows those computers better than anybody. All those computers. Those vote-counting computers. And we ended up winning Pennsylvania like in a landslide.
— trump, on stage at a victory rally in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 19, 2025
The idiot can’t keep his mouth shut and basically blabbed exactly what they were doing, yet nobody really listened.
Casual dismissal of statistically relevant recount and largest recount ever in Wisconsin, even including compared to 2020.
Local elections officials in 336 randomly selected municipalities across the state hand-counted 327,230 ballots as part of the 2024 audit. That is nearly 10% of all Wisconsin ballots cast in the 2024 election and the largest post-election audit ever undertaken in the state.
The only errors found during the audit were made by people, not the vote-counting machines. And only five human errors were detected, resulting in an error rate of just 0.0000009%, according to the report.
I will point out that if they did it in a state they weren't going to win and that would be too suspicious for them to actually win in the first place, why wouldn't they replicate it in a state they actually needed and on which his election actually hinged? Just means New York was a control/test case
Frankly after election there are two things that bugged me in California. There was a proposition that removed mandatory work requirement for inmates comparing it to a modern day slavery. There was no one who was willing to endorse vote against it (I suppose due to optics) yet the proposition failed.
When he visited CA after fires were already put down and made that spectacle with water dam, he also mentioned that he had a good feeling about next election.
I have a feeling that maybe CA voting is also compromised and this was a test for California, as trump winning here would be extremely suspicious, but no one will care about this proposition.
That one isn't suspicious to me. US public opinion has always had very little regard for anyone who's incarcerated. Hence, once the system gets ahold of you, you're fucked whether you're guilty or not (unless you're wealthy).
If a result like this was found in a swing state, I'd be sure it was malicious. In New York, that seems improbable. Someone clever enough to conduct the attack is unlikely to be stupid enough to employ it in a way that creates an obvious anomaly without changing the result.
From what I understand about the issue that I read about in a different article it was about software changes made to a program that many states use, PA was one of them.
I think NY is the only place where it is currently being investigated, but if it happened here I don't doubt it happened elsewhere.
our election was, literally, stolen. Trump and his fascists have spent years calling his loss to Biden “stolen” which ultimately harmed any real attempts at calling out future election results. many statisticians are sounding the alarm bells—something is wrong. the data doesn’t lie and the voting heavily implies manipulation. there is a group investigating our election results and making their findings public. they are very concerned with what they are uncovering.
odds and probability are unimportant to me. I'm only concerned with the reasons these investigations are continuing. What does justice look like in best and worst case scenarios?
In Volusia County, Florida during the 2000 election Al Gore received negative votes, and I'm sure we all remember how that turned out because everyone on this site is old as fuck so let's temper our excitement this time around.
Some algorithm probably takes votes away from a canadiate but you can't have negative votes. Someone forgot to insert the threshold killing the program.
Let's just say there was fraud, and Kamala did actually win:
Now what? This administration has been blatantly breaking the law, ignoring the constitution and court orders since day fucking 1 without consequence. Will someone with authority finally grow some fucking nuts and arrest the felon(s) over this, even though they could and should have already for numerous other reasons?
Winning a majority of the electorial votes is what's required to be elected president. There is no federal requirement that the electors of the electorial college vote in accordance with the popular vote of the state they represent. If enough fraud is proven that Harris should have ~~one~~ won it doesn't change the outcome of the electorial vote. According to the laws as they currently are Trump would still be president.
Also not surprising that investigations weren’t pushed harder after election and before new administration. Biden and Garland should’ve put throttle down on a five-alarm-fire investigation into election. Did they? No. Surprised? Not at all.
Transitions shouldn’t necessarily be smooth if an election was potentially fraudulent — peaceful, yes.
It's ironic that Hitler's "Night of the Long Knives" (when the Nazis arrested and eventually murdered numerous brownshirts and their leader, Ernst Roehm) acquired that name because Hitler himself used the expression in a speech that he gave immediately after the event. In the speech, he accused Roehm of having been planning a "NIght of the Long Knives" himself, directed at Hitler and the other Nazi leaders. Quite unintentionally, the phrase came to describe Hitler's actions.
Yes, but then he un-conceded. How do you think it got to the Supreme Court unless he fought?
He brought it to the Florida circuit court, and when he lost he appealed to the Florida Supreme Court, who ruled in his favor. Then Bush appealed to the US Supreme Court.
The problem was a coordinated effort to steal the election by the bitch queen Katherine Harris, Florida Secretary of State and Bush's Florida campaign co-chair, a fake riot by Republican operatives to disrupt a recount, and a collaborating Supreme Court. It was all tied up nicely in a bow and there wasn't much Gore could have done, although he should have requested a statewide recount right from the start instead of just cherry picking solidly Democratic-leaning counties like Miami-Dade.
He initially called Bush to concede and then called him back to un-concede, which really pissed off Bush. That's what I was referring to. It wasn't public, though.
because that’s what the left does unless it’s against their own. it’s infuriating to watch the party fight itself harder than it’ll fight the opposition
To be clear, the DNC is fighting against its constituents. This is Washington politicians and funders vs. the people. Sad to say, Washington is winning.
Others clearly have their pitch forks ready to go but the real reason here is because they won NY. I'd be shocked if any presidential candidate in the history of the US demanded a recount in a state they won.
Is 0 votes suspicious? Absolutely. Is the recount process the right way to uncover something happening at a scale to compromise an entire district's election process? Probably not.
However suspicious this district is, it's not justification for a recount in another district in a completely different state.
If there is interference at a meaningful scale, it's not going to be uncovered by volunteers working without sleep to deliver election results as quickly as humanly possible. The wheels of justice turn far top slowly.
Because they didn't want to be perceived as doing the same thing as the Republicans after the 2020 election. After complaining about the Republicans not having a "peaceful transfer of power," Dems thought it was important to demonstrate how that works, and be smug about it.
Unfortunately, this was precisely the wrong election to make that point, since this election truly was rat fucked by MAGA.
I've thought about that. But that seems like a terrible strategy, because it lets the Republicans do anything. The Republicans do a bad thing, or accuse you of doing a bad thing, and now you're incapable of responding to it?
Yes, it's a terrible strategy, but it's the easiest one to default to if you are a cowardly spineless weenie Democrat who is afraid to confront serious treason and corruption, like Chuck Schumer. Traditional Dems are satisfied with losing, as long as they can feel smug about being morally superior while doing it, even if it means watching the Reps systematically dismantle America on behalf of the Russians.
We need elected representatives at every level who aren't afraid to go to battle to defend our country from treasonous criminals and Sociopathic Oligarchs.
I always had a feeling that the election was a bit too quickly decided. I’ve said before that in the coming months and years after the 2024 election we would find out something fishy was happening.
That’s honestly what got me too. Like it took a week for them to get all of the results from 2020, and sure, that could’ve been all the mail in ballots, but then you have Rogan saying elongated muskrat had called the election the night OF voting?
I don’t know man. I’ve seen a few elections now and don’t remember that happening.
If you have a few hours to kill, this podcast had the guy from election truth alliance on. It is the most tolerable of the few podcasts he's appeared on because this guy is data heavy, and quite frankly it can be boring with how much he talks about data and graphs, but the data is there. They are very data driven. Part 2 has most of the data, but essentially votes went way up for Republicans as time went on. Statistically speaking, there should be a similar distribution of votes throughout, but what we see is any time Kamala gets close, a flood of red votes come in. The theory is a vote switching algorithm. Imo Elon saying that without him the Dems get the presidency and the house is not hyperbole. I'm pretty sure they were flipping votes and/ or using data from the super PAC $100 giveaway to file fake votes. There are a bunch of submitted ballots that were down ballot dem, but president and house / Senate (the ones that mattered the most) went to Republicans. The only way to find out is to do audits. And even if (and imo when) we do find out it was stolen, I don't think we have any recourse to remove him, but it would be nice to know that we didn't choose this, and the states can beef up their election security and politicians can stop being so spineless thinking that he's so popular and they are powerless.
The guy was dancing around like a crazy person to Ave Maria at his last rally and yelling about people eating cats and dogs on the debate. There's no way anyone saw that and wanted that running the country save the maybe 8% of the population that are Trump Simps.
His rallies were empty and Harris had the momentum with a packed house everywhere she went. She mopped the floor with him in the debate. The fact that she accepted the results and didn't push for a single recount was asinine imo. With Trump, everything is projection. There's evidence they tried to steal '20 and we're just overwhelmed by the sheer volume of people who voted by mail to oust him. Vote by mail is typically hand counted and harder to alter.
Profitez des vidéos et de la musique que vous aimez, mettez en ligne des contenus originaux, et partagez-les avec vos amis, vos proches et le monde entier.
The guy was dancing around like a crazy person to Ave Maria at his last rally and yelling about people eating cats and dogs on the debate. There’s no way anyone saw that and wanted that running the country save the maybe 8% of the population that are Trump Simps.
If the new standard is for Republicans to cast doubt on the legitimacy of every election, except for the ones they win, then we should, at the very least, be scrutinizing every single aspect of the election. Refuse to concede, demand recounts, hand tally the electronic ballots, search up and down and under every rock for evidence that the other side is guilty of some foul play.
Because if they had done that in the first place, they might have uncovered shit like this before it was too late to stop the wrong candidate from getting inaugurated. If they had bothered to put up a fight instead of maintaining decorum that the Republicans never bother to show, maybe they would have discovered what many of us already suspected - that Elon Musk somehow tampered with the voting machines to swing the election in Donald Trump's favor in key swing states. They practically admitted as much on stage, and nobody batted an eye at it.
I don't expect to ever live to see another fair election for the rest of my life.
I remember asking a few weeks after the election if anyone at all was talking about it being rigged. It seemed at the time everyone just accepted the result. Only in the past month or so have I started seeing talk of it.
Leading up to the election all we were talking about is how trump got ahold of documents through court filings that would show exactly how the voting machines worked. Crazy how thst talking point just fell away.
At this point we know the who, the why, the what, and the how. We need to figure out the where and when.
I'm very much against conspiracy theories, especially concerning our elections which are administered by many many independent entities. I was very concerned as I watched electronic voting machines - especially without paper trails - become more and more popular over the past 30 years. Even more as the industry consolidated and it came down to a handful of private, for-profit manufacturers.
The thing I've read about that is keeping the door of conspiracy open in my mind is the "drop off" rate, which has to do with the number of "President only" ballots, where only the President is chosen, and no down ballot votes are cast.
Apparently Trump's ballots have an unusually high - like statistically unlikely - drop off. And it's either only in or mostly in/more pronounced in swing states.
Even Chris Titus picked it up (3 hrs total, sorry)
Profitez des vidéos et de la musique que vous aimez, mettez en ligne des contenus originaux, et partagez-les avec vos amis, vos proches et le monde entier.
Trump didn't even try to get elected. Total fuck it all pill during his running like he knew he was going to win, then he wins by a huge margin electorally and the popular vote. It was surreal.
If only there was a give movement of Democrat voters telling you loudly WE WON'T VOTE FOR HARRIS...
You guys usually love to blame us for Trump, even though we promised you he would win if you didn't give us an electable candidate, but hey if you now want to change stories again to follow whatever dem narrative is being spun today, then yeah her winning NY so bigly is obviously evidence of a stolen election...
Or she wasn't electable. No no no, it's everyone else's fault.
yup, they kicked out Hogg because of the threat to their lifelong tenures and disrupt their ability to put their thumbs on the scale for the most disappointing republican lite candidates the isreali money wants the dnc to run
Sometimes you have to just suck it up and act/vote to reduce harm. That's called reality. It's like taking chemo if you have a fatal cancer. Chemo SUCKS and you might die of cancer anyway, but if you don't go through it, you will certainly die.
Most likely a mix of everything. I am sure that Republicans tried to win with illegal (vote tampering) and legal (voter suppression, gerrymandering, etc...) methods. Combined with a dumbass population, everything is possible.
The filing also includes the revealing deposition of the late Michael Connell. Connell served as the IT guru for the Bush family and Karl Rove. Connell ran the private IT firm GovTech that created the controversial system that transferred Ohio's vote count late on election night 2004 to a partisan Republican server site in Chattanooga, Tennessee owned by SmarTech. That is when the vote shift happened, not predicted by the exit polls, that led to Bush's unexpected victory. Connell died a month and a half after giving this deposition in a suspicious small plane crash.
Additionally, the filing contains the contract signed between then-Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell and Connell's company, GovTech Solutions. Also included that contract a graphic architectural map of the Secretary of State's election night server layout system.
Cliff Arnebeck, lead attorney in the King Lincoln case, exchanged emails with IT security expert Stephen Spoonamore. Arnebeck asked Spoonamore whether or not SmarTech had the capability to "input data" and thus alter the results of Ohio's 2004 election. Spoonamore responded: "Yes. They would have had data input capacities. The system might have been set up to log which source generated the data but probably did not."
Spoonamore explained that "they [SmarTech] have full access and could change things when and if they want."
Arnebeck specifically asked "Could this be done using whatever bypass techniques Connell developed for the web hosting function." Spoonamore replied "Yes."
Tomas Rueda, of the Hispanic Republican Club of Cleveland, a poll challenger, monitors voting at a polling site in Cleveland on Election Day, Tuesday, Nov 2…
In the 2000 election cycle, electronic voting machines manufactured by Diebold used Microsoft Access as the underlying database for storing vote counts. Only techie oldheads will remember this, but in the world of electronic data storage Access was basically a toy. Access databases did have an audit table (which tracks every change made to the data), but the audit table was hand-editable.
Leftists and liberals all think they're somehow immune to conspiracy theories, but here we are. Nearly everyone commenting or voting in this thread has an opinion based on feelings, and they're looking for evidence to justify their beliefs. "I'm not one to believe conspiracy theories, but..." That's a load-bearing "but" there.
No really: stop for ten seconds and think about why you believe this. Be honest.
Yes, I'm aware of the video that's been linked repeatedly where they can't explain how a small percentage of Trump cultists only voted for Trump and no one else. Imagine that: voters who think the entire system is corrupt and Trump is their savior don't vote for anyone else.
And as korendian has been trying to tell you, New Square in Ramapo, NY is a tiny, 100% Hasidic village and votes as a monolithic bloc.
There is a strong expectation that residents of New Square will conform to community norms... Those who have not conformed voluntarily have faced vigilante justice, as exemplified by the New Square arson attack and other incidents.
I'm not saying the election was clean. It never is. Red states purge voters they shouldn't, they enact laws to discourage voters and make it more difficult, etc. And sometimes it actually is a conspiracy: 2000 is one example where it really was rigged for Bush through coordinated efforts.
But there's zero persuasive evidence for 2024. If I see some, I'll charge my mind. But not until then.
After HitlerPig's 2025 State of the Union speech, new Democratic senator Elissa Slotkin gave the Democratic response, and tried to sell the idea that millions of people in her state voted for her for Senator, but Trump for president.
This past weekend, Amy Klobuchar tried to sell that same fantasy on Meet The Press - that millions in her state voted for her, but also voted for HitlerPig.
I'm sure there are a few people who split their vote, but they have to be as rare as white squirrels. There are supposed to be millions of them, so many that HitlerPig even won EVERY battleground state (an exceptionally unlikely outcome), but I've never heard one actual voter claim they voted a straight Democratic ticket, except HitlerPig for president. It sounds ridiculous when you actually say it.
Profitez des vidéos et de la musique que vous aimez, mettez en ligne des contenus originaux, et partagez-les avec vos amis, vos proches et le monde entier.
There are supposed to be millions of them, so many that HitlerPig even won EVERY battleground state (an exceptionally unlikely outcome), but I’ve never heard one actual voter claim they voted a straight Democratic ticket, except HitlerPig for president.
Harris and Slotkin net out almost perfectly. Trump outran Rogers by over 3% of the vote, which suggests people were showing up to support Mr Cheeto and then leaving the rest of the ballot blank.
That is... not unbelievable. The Trump Cult is strong, while the GOP as a party lags Trump's personality cult substantially.
Polling gets even worse in other Midwestern states, with Harris outright underwater to her down ballot Dems. But there's nobody in the GOP Trump doesn't outpace. The idea that people are voting Trump + Dem is far less likely than voting Trump + Nobody.
Citing the vote counts to prove the point that the election was "fair & square" is like using the Bible to prove that God is real. Of course they prove HitlerPig won, they're rigged! We're supposed to believe he won EVERY swing state? No Republican has won the popular vote since 1988, but we're supposed to believe the least popular Republican president in decades, one who actually LOST his reelection by a wide margin, is the guy to break that streak? Ridiculous.
What makes more sense to me, and is supported by the evidence and personal statements by the players themselves, is that they rigged the election, especially in the swing states, assisted by the richest man in the world (and his army of some of the best tech experts in the world), and Putin, who we know has been actively pursuing cyber-espionage for years.
When will people internalize that the two biggest FOREIGN Sociopathic Oligarchs, one with a government superpower at his disposal, another with the largest fortune on the planet, neither with any loyalty or patriotism toward America, have partnered up with the most prolific traitor in American history, to exploit our country in every way possible? None of them care about history or legacy or reputation, they see America as a rich, fat, lazy target, ripe for exploitation and looting.
This is why manual hand counted votes still happen to this day in Canada and Australia. They both faced the same MAGA threat and the lib won.
Yes it takes longer. And sometimes results will take weeks to resolve but at least they don’t end up in a situation like this where the entire system is so corrupt 4 months later it’s near impossible to fix it.
They both faced the same MAGA threat and the lib won.
Largely thanks to the local public backlash to Trump tariffs. If Kamala had prevailed in November, both countries would likely have MAGA governments today.
Yeah, it's weird to be an American and hope the silver lining of trump is that the rest of the world keeps making better choices in response to how bad this is.
Part of the Trump brand is "Fuck you, I've got mine" which isn't condusive to international coalitions.
Hell, just look at the Ukraine/Russia conflict. As soon as Trump got Zelensky to sign a bunch of Western Ukrainian real estate over to his cronies, he unleashed a large traunch of weapons to fuck over Putin. As soon as he got another Perfect Phone Call from Xi, and secured some unspecified promise, the Chinese tariffs evaporated.
My man stands for nothing that won't fit into his pocket.
Note to mention that not only are they harder to scale attacks against, manual vote counts are easier to trust, As anyone can understand the process and how it ensured that their vote counted.
No matter how well they are protected it's hard to explain to the average person how a computer ensures their vote was counted correctly.
So wait a minute here guys, you're telling me that the man who was convicted by a unanimous jury of fraud (cheating) in the 2016 election, the same guy who called the governors of various states and asked them to 'find him some votes' in 2020, did not run a clean honest campaign in 2024???
The first meeting of the China-US economic and trade consultation mechanism that was held in London led to new progress in addressing each other's economic and trade concerns, China's state broadcaster CCTV reported on Wednesday.
The Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit organization which hosts and develops Wikipedia, has paused an experiment that showed users AI-generated summaries at the top of articles after an overwhelmingly negative reaction from the Wikipedia editors community.
“Just because Google has rolled out its AI summaries doesn't mean we need to one-up them, I sincerely beg you not to test this, on mobile or anywhere else,” one editor said in response to Wikimedia Foundation’s announcement that it will launch a two-week trial of the summaries on the mobile version of Wikipedia. “This would do immediate and irreversible harm to our readers and to our reputation as a decently trustworthy and serious source. Wikipedia has in some ways become a byword for sober boringness, which is excellent. Let's not insult our readers' intelligence and join the stampede to roll out flashy AI summaries. Which is what these are, although here the word ‘machine-generated’ is used instead.”
Two other editors simply commented, “Yuck.”
For years, Wikipedia has been one of the most valuable repositories of information in the world, and a laudable model for community-based, democratic internet platform governance. Its importance has only grown in the last couple of years during the generative AI boom as it’s one of the only internet platforms that has not been significantly degraded by the flood of AI-generated slop and misinformation. As opposed to Google, which since embracing generative AI has instructed its users to eat glue, Wikipedia’s community has kept its articles relatively high quality. As I recently reported last year, editors are actively working to filter out bad, AI-generated content from Wikipedia.
A page detailing the the AI-generated summaries project, called “Simple Article Summaries,” explains that it was proposed after a discussion at Wikimedia’s 2024 conference, Wikimania, where “Wikimedians discussed ways that AI/machine-generated remixing of the already created content can be used to make Wikipedia more accessible and easier to learn from.” Editors who participated in the discussion thought that these summaries could improve the learning experience on Wikipedia, where some article summaries can be quite dense and filled with technical jargon, but that AI features needed to be cleared labeled as such and that users needed an easy to way to flag issues with “machine-generated/remixed content once it was published or generated automatically.”
In one experiment where summaries were enabled for users who have the Wikipedia browser extension installed, the generated summary showed up at the top of the article, which users had to click to expand and read. That summary was also flagged with a yellow “unverified” label.
An example of what the AI-generated summary looked like.
Wikimedia announced that it was going to run the generated summaries experiment on June 2, and was immediately met with dozens of replies from editors who said “very bad idea,” “strongest possible oppose,” Absolutely not,” etc.
“Yes, human editors can introduce reliability and NPOV [neutral point-of-view] issues. But as a collective mass, it evens out into a beautiful corpus,” one editor said. “With Simple Article Summaries, you propose giving one singular editor with known reliability and NPOV issues a platform at the very top of any given article, whilst giving zero editorial control to others. It reinforces the idea that Wikipedia cannot be relied on, destroying a decade of policy work. It reinforces the belief that unsourced, charged content can be added, because this platforms it. I don't think I would feel comfortable contributing to an encyclopedia like this. No other community has mastered collaboration to such a wondrous extent, and this would throw that away.”
A day later, Wikimedia announced that it would pause the launch of the experiment, but indicated that it’s still interested in AI-generated summaries.
“The Wikimedia Foundation has been exploring ways to make Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects more accessible to readers globally,” a Wikimedia Foundation spokesperson told me in an email. “This two-week, opt-in experiment was focused on making complex Wikipedia articles more accessible to people with different reading levels. For the purposes of this experiment, the summaries were generated by an open-weight Aya model by Cohere. It was meant to gauge interest in a feature like this, and to help us think about the right kind of community moderation systems to ensure humans remain central to deciding what information is shown on Wikipedia.”
“It is common to receive a variety of feedback from volunteers, and we incorporate it in our decisions, and sometimes change course,” the Wikimedia Foundation spokesperson added. “We welcome such thoughtful feedback — this is what continues to make Wikipedia a truly collaborative platform of human knowledge.”
“Reading through the comments, it’s clear we could have done a better job introducing this idea and opening up the conversation here on VPT back in March,” a Wikimedia Foundation project manager said. VPT, or “village pump technical,” is where The Wikimedia Foundation and the community discuss technical aspects of the platform. “As internet usage changes over time, we are trying to discover new ways to help new generations learn from Wikipedia to sustain our movement into the future. In consequence, we need to figure out how we can experiment in safe ways that are appropriate for readers and the Wikimedia community. Looking back, we realize the next step with this message should have been to provide more of that context for you all and to make the space for folks to engage further.”
The project manager also said that “Bringing generative AI into the Wikipedia reading experience is a serious set of decisions, with important implications, and we intend to treat it as such, and that “We do not have any plans for bringing a summary feature to the wikis without editor involvement. An editor moderation workflow is required under any circumstances, both for this idea, as well as any future idea around AI summarized or adapted content.”
Wikipedia Pauses AI-Generated Summaries After Editor Backlash
The Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit organization which hosts and develops Wikipedia, has paused an experiment that showed users AI-generated summaries at the top of articles after an overwhelmingly negative reaction from the Wikipedia editors community.
“Just because Google has rolled out its AI summaries doesn't mean we need to one-up them, I sincerely beg you not to test this, on mobile or anywhere else,” one editor said in response to Wikimedia Foundation’s announcement that it will launch a two-week trial of the summaries on the mobile version of Wikipedia. “This would do immediate and irreversible harm to our readers and to our reputation as a decently trustworthy and serious source. Wikipedia has in some ways become a byword for sober boringness, which is excellent. Let's not insult our readers' intelligence and join the stampede to roll out flashy AI summaries. Which is what these are, although here the word ‘machine-generated’ is used instead.”
Two other editors simply commented, “Yuck.”
For years, Wikipedia has been one of the most valuable repositories of information in the world, and a laudable model for community-based, democratic internet platform governance. Its importance has only grown in the last couple of years during the generative AI boom as it’s one of the only internet platforms that has not been significantly degraded by the flood of AI-generated slop and misinformation. As opposed to Google, which since embracing generative AI has instructed its users to eat glue, Wikipedia’s community has kept its articles relatively high quality. As I recently reported last year, editors are actively working to filter out bad, AI-generated content from Wikipedia.
A page detailing the the AI-generated summaries project, called “Simple Article Summaries,” explains that it was proposed after a discussion at Wikimedia’s 2024 conference, Wikimania, where “Wikimedians discussed ways that AI/machine-generated remixing of the already created content can be used to make Wikipedia more accessible and easier to learn from.” Editors who participated in the discussion thought that these summaries could improve the learning experience on Wikipedia, where some article summaries can be quite dense and filled with technical jargon, but that AI features needed to be cleared labeled as such and that users needed an easy to way to flag issues with “machine-generated/remixed content once it was published or generated automatically.”
In one experiment where summaries were enabled for users who have the Wikipedia browser extension installed, the generated summary showed up at the top of the article, which users had to click to expand and read. That summary was also flagged with a yellow “unverified” label. An example of what the AI-generated summary looked like. Wikimedia announced that it was going to run the generated summaries experiment on June 2, and was immediately met with dozens of replies from editors who said “very bad idea,” “strongest possible oppose,” Absolutely not,” etc.
“Yes, human editors can introduce reliability and NPOV [neutral point-of-view] issues. But as a collective mass, it evens out into a beautiful corpus,” one editor said. “With Simple Article Summaries, you propose giving one singular editor with known reliability and NPOV issues a platform at the very top of any given article, whilst giving zero editorial control to others. It reinforces the idea that Wikipedia cannot be relied on, destroying a decade of policy work. It reinforces the belief that unsourced, charged content can be added, because this platforms it. I don't think I would feel comfortable contributing to an encyclopedia like this. No other community has mastered collaboration to such a wondrous extent, and this would throw that away.”
A day later, Wikimedia announced that it would pause the launch of the experiment, but indicated that it’s still interested in AI-generated summaries.
“The Wikimedia Foundation has been exploring ways to make Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects more accessible to readers globally,” a Wikimedia Foundation spokesperson told me in an email. “This two-week, opt-in experiment was focused on making complex Wikipedia articles more accessible to people with different reading levels. For the purposes of this experiment, the summaries were generated by an open-weight Aya model by Cohere. It was meant to gauge interest in a feature like this, and to help us think about the right kind of community moderation systems to ensure humans remain central to deciding what information is shown on Wikipedia.”
“It is common to receive a variety of feedback from volunteers, and we incorporate it in our decisions, and sometimes change course,” the Wikimedia Foundation spokesperson added. “We welcome such thoughtful feedback — this is what continues to make Wikipedia a truly collaborative platform of human knowledge.”
“Reading through the comments, it’s clear we could have done a better job introducing this idea and opening up the conversation here on VPT back in March,” a Wikimedia Foundation project manager said. VPT, or “village pump technical,” is where The Wikimedia Foundation and the community discuss technical aspects of the platform. “As internet usage changes over time, we are trying to discover new ways to help new generations learn from Wikipedia to sustain our movement into the future. In consequence, we need to figure out how we can experiment in safe ways that are appropriate for readers and the Wikimedia community. Looking back, we realize the next step with this message should have been to provide more of that context for you all and to make the space for folks to engage further.”
The project manager also said that “Bringing generative AI into the Wikipedia reading experience is a serious set of decisions, with important implications, and we intend to treat it as such, and that “We do not have any plans for bringing a summary feature to the wikis without editor involvement. An editor moderation workflow is required under any circumstances, both for this idea, as well as any future idea around AI summarized or adapted content.”
Summaries for complex Wikipedia articles would be great, especially for people less knowledgeable of the given topic, but I don't see why those would have to be AI-generated.
Fucking thank you. Yes, experienced editor to add to this: that's called the lead, and that's exactly what it exists to do. Readers are not even close to starved for summaries:
Every single article has one of these. It is at the very beginning – at most around 600 words for very extensive, multifaceted subjects. 250 to 400 words is generally considered an excellent window to target for a well-fleshed-out article.
Even then, the first sentence itself is almost always a definition of the subject, making it a summary unto itself.
And even then, the first paragraph is also its own form of summary in a multi-paragraph lead.
And even then, the infobox to the right of 99% of articles gives easily digestible data about the subject in case you only care about raw, important facts (e.g. when a politician was in office, what a country's flag is, what systems a game was released for, etc.)
And even then, if you just want a specific subtopic, there's a table of contents, and we generally try as much as possible (without harming the "linear" reading experience) to make it so that you can intuitively jump straight from the lead to a main section (level 2 header).
Even then, if you don't want to click on an article and just instead hover over its wikilink, we provide a summary of fewer than 40 characters so that readers get a broad idea without having to click (e.g. Shoeless Joe Jackson's is "American baseball player (1887–1951)").
What's outrageous here isn't wanting summaries; it's that summaries already exist in so many ways, written by the human writers who write the contents of the articles. Not only that, but as a free, editable encyclopedia, these summaries can be changed at any time if editors feel like they no longer do their job somehow.
This not only bypasses the hard work real, human editors put in for free in favor of some generic slop that's impossible to QA, but it also bypasses the spirit of Wikipedia that if you see something wrong, you should be able to fix it.
Yeah this screams "Let's use AI for the sake of using AI". If they wanted simpler summaries on complex topics they could just start an initiative to have them added by editors instead of using a wasteful, inaccurate hype machine
If they’re high quality editors who consistently put out a lot of edits then yeah, it is meaningful and insightful. Wikipedia exists because of them and only them. If most feel like they do and stop doing all this maintenance for free, then Wikipedia becomes a graffiti wall/ad space and not an encyclopedia.
Thinking the immediate disgust of the people doing all the work for you for free is meaningless is the best way to nose dive.
Also, you literally had to scroll past a very long and insightful comment to get to that.
I know one study found that 51% of summaries that AI produced for them contained significant errors. So AI-summaries are bad news for anyone who hopes to be well informed. source bbc.com/news/articles/c0m17d88…
The main issue I have as an editor is that there is no straightforward way to retrain the LLM to correct faulty training as directly or revertably as the existing method of editing an article's wikicode. Already, much of my time updating Wikipedia is spent parsing puffery and removing phrases like “award-winning” or “renowned”, inserted by malicious advertisers trying to use Wikipedia as a free billboard. If a Wikipedia LLM began making subjective claims instead of providing objective facts backed by citations, I would have to teach myself machine learning and get involved with the developers who manage the LLM's training. That raises the bar for editor technical competency which Wikipedia historically has been striving to lower (e.g. Visual Editor).
Is it just me, or was the addition of AI summaries basically predetermined? The AI panel probably would only be attended by a small portion of editors (introducing selection bias) and it's unclear how much of the panel was dedicated to simply promoting the concept.
I imagine the backlash comes from a much wider selection of editors.
A page detailing the the AI-generated summaries project, called “Simple Article Summaries,” explains that it was proposed after a discussion at Wikimedia’s 2024 conference, Wikimania, where “Wikimedians discussed ways that AI/machine-generated remixing of the already created content can be used to make Wikipedia more accessible and easier to learn from.” Editors who participated in the discussion thought that these summaries could improve the learning experience on Wikipedia, where some article summaries can be quite dense and filled with technical jargon, but that AI features needed to be cleared labeled as such and that users needed an easy to way to flag issues with “machine-generated/remixed content once it was published or generated automatically.”
The intent was to make more uniform summaries, since some of them can still be inscrutable. Relying on a tool notorious for making significant errors isn't the right way to do it, but it's a real issue being examined.
In thermochemistry, an exothermic reaction is a "reaction for which the overall standard enthalpy change ΔH⚬ is negative."[1][2] Exothermic reactions usually release heat. The term is often confused with exergonic reaction, which IUPAC defines as "... a reaction for which the overall standard Gibbs energy change ΔG⚬ is negative."[2] A strongly exothermic reaction will usually also be exergonic because ΔH⚬ makes a major contribution to ΔG⚬. Most of the spectacular chemical reactions that are demonstrated in classrooms are exothermic and exergonic. The opposite is an endothermic reaction, which usually takes up heat and is driven by an entropy increase in the system.
This is a perfectly accurate summary, but it's not entirely clear and has room for improvement.
I'm guessing they were adding new summaries so that they could clearly label them and not remove the existing ones, not out of a desire to add even more summaries.
Wikimedians discussed ways that AI/machine-generated remixing of the already created content can be used to make Wikipedia more accessible and easier to learn from
The entire mistake right there. Look no further. They saw a solution (LLMs) and started hunting for a problem.
Had they done it the right way round there might have been some useful, though less flashy, outcome. I agree many article summaries are badly written. So why not experiment with an AI that flags those articles for review? Or even just organize a community drive to clean up article summaries?
The questions are rhetorical of course. Like every GenAI peddler they don't have an interest in the problem they purport to solve, they just want to play with or sell you this shiny toy that pretends really convincingly that it is clever.
Because the phrase "Wikipedians discussed ways that AI..." Is ambiguous I tracked down the page being referenced. It could mean they gathered with the intent to discuss that topic, or they discussed it as a result of considering the problem.
The page gives me the impression that it's not quite "we're gonna use AI, figure it out", but more that some people put together a presentation on how they felt AI could be used to address a broad problem, and then they workshopped more focused ways to use it towards that broad target.
It would have been better if they had started with an actual concrete problem, brainstormed solutions, and then gone with one that fit, but they were at least starting with a problem domain that they thought it was a applicable to.
Personally, the problems I've run into on Wikipedia are largely low traffic topics where the content is too much like someone copied a textbook into the page, or just awkward grammar and confusing sentences. This article quickly makes it clear that someone didn't write it in an encyclopedia style from scratch.
Mathematics articles are the most obtuse I come across. I think the Venn diagram of good mathematicians and good science communicators is very close to non-intersecting.
Somebody tried to build a bridge between both groups but they ran into the conundrum that to get to the other side they would first need to get half way to that side, then get half way of the remaining distance, then half way the new remaining distance and so on an infinite number of times, and as the bridge was started from the science communicators side rather than the mathematicians side, they couldn't figure out a solution and gave up.
Even beyond that, the "complex" language they claim is confusing is the whole point of Wikipedia. Neutral, precise language that describes matters accurately for laymen. There are links to every unusual or complex related subject and even individual words in all the articles.
I find it disturbing that a major share of the userbase is supposedly unable to process the information provided in this format, and needs it dumbed down even further. Wikipedia is already the summarized and simplified version of many topics.
Ho come on it’s not that simple. Add to that the language barrier. And in general precise language and accuracy are not making knowledge more available to laymen. Laymen don’t have to vocabulary to start with, that’s pretty much the definition of being a layman.
There is definitely value in dumbing down knowledge, that’s the point of education.
Now using AI or pushing guidelines for editors to do it that’s entirely different discussion…
You can click on the terms you don't know to learn about them.
This is what makes Wikipedia special. Not the fact that it is a giant encyclopedia, but that you can quickly and logically work your way through a complex subject at your pace and level of understanding. Reading about elements but don't know what a proton is? Guess what, there's a link right fucking there!
some article summaries can be quite dense and filled with technical jargon, but that Al features needed to be cleared labeled as such and that users needed an easy to way to flag issues with "machine-generated/remixed content once it was published or generated automatically.
I feel like if they feel that this is an issue generate the summary in the talk page and have the editors refine and approve it before publishing. Alternatively set an expectation that the article summaries are in plain English.
Good! I was considering stopping my monthly donation. They better kill the entire "machine-generated" nonsense instead of just pausing, or I will stop my pledge!
There are 1000 ways to get a summary of a Wikipedia article. I don’t think they need to offer them directly on the site. If someone wants a machine generated summary or translation they already have a tool to do that. Seems like a waste of Wikipedia’s Resources
Those Americans with a 6th grade reading level or less are precisely the people who shouldn’t be reading AI summaries. They’ll lack the critical thinking and reading skills to catch on to garbage.
Didn't know that exists, and that needs more marketing. I literally have a "Daily Wikipedia Article" thing and never came across it. And maybe a different name, like Simplified Wikipedia, because I thought you meant something different.
That number of articles is still pretty impressive. I’d rather have fewer, high quality articles, than millions of terrible quality AI articles.
The great thing about Wikipedia is that anyone can add articles! It also wouldn’t be too difficult to “translate” regular Wikipedia articles to simple ones. You could even use AI tools to help - there are text leveler tools that will help you recognize which words lower level readers would struggle with and can help you make those changes. But this cannot be an automated process.
I’ve done graduate level course work on modifying text for “EMLs” - “emerging multilingual learners.” (“ELL” is still okay, but lots of folks in the field prefer EML because it is prioritizing the students “assets.”) I’ve made several assignments for students with reading difficulties. When I did experiment a bit with AI tools to help me with this process, I had to do a lot of fine tuning to get an acceptable product.
Tbh, you just convinced me right now that I should start adding more articles myself.
If someone is going to Wikipedia specifically looking for information in a STEM field, then an AI summary isn't going to help them. Odds are they can also read, because they're looking up STEM topics.
Also, is Wikipedia not available around the world, or you just think only Americans can't read? Inflammatory just for the sake of being inflammatory I'm guessing. Shit troll job.
I think that's not possible. Wikipedia collects as little user data as possible, and providing a different UX in different countries sounds like it would already be too intrusive in that regard.
Aaaaarrgg! This is horrible they stopped AI summaries, which I was hoping would help corrupt a leading institution protecting free thought and transfer of knowledge.
Lucifer is literally the angel of free thought. Satanism promotes critical thinking and the right to question authority. Wikipedia is one of the few remaining repositories of free knowledge and polluting it with LLM summaries is exactly the inscrutable, uncritiqueable bullshit that led to the Abrahamic god casting Lucifer out.
I realize your reply is facetious, but there's a reason we're dealing with christofascists and not satanic fascists. Don't do my boy dirty like that.
Didn't they just pass a site-wide decision on the use of LLMs in creating/editing otherwise "human made" text?
Why do they need to take the human element out? Why would anyone want them to?
God I hope this isn't the beginning of the end for Wikipedia. They live and die on the efforts of volunteer editors (like Reddit relied on volunteer mods and third party tool devs). The fastest way to tank themselves is by driving off their volunteers with shit like this.
And it's absurdly easier to lose the good will they have than to rebuild it.
Wait until you learn about their budget. When they do donation drives with a sad jimmy wales face they make it seem like Wikipedia is about to go offline. However if they were only hosting Wikipedia they already have enough money to do that pretty much until the end of time. However the foundation spends a ton of money on the pet causes of the board members. The causes aren’t necessarily bad or anything, but misleading donors like that is super messed up.
Is it still possible to see those generated summaries somewhere? Would like to see what their model outputs for some articles, especially compared to the human written lead-in.
As far as I've seen they only generated one example summary, which is linked in OP. It's not good, as Wikipedians have pointed out: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedi…
I'm so tired of "AI". I'm tired of people who don't understand it expecting it to be magical and error free. I'm tired of grifters trying to sell it like snake oil. I'm tired of capitalist assholes drooling over the idea of firing all that pesky labor and replacing them with machines. (You can be twice as productive with AI! But you will neither get paid twice as much nor work half as many hours. I'll keep all the gains.). I'm tired of the industrial scale theft that apologists want to give a pass to while individuals who torrent can still get in trouble, and libraries are chronically under funded.
It's just all bad, and I'm so tired of feeling like so many people are just not getting it.
I hope wikipedia never adopts this stupid AI Summary project.
People not getting things that seem obvious is an ongoing theme, it seems. We sat through a presentation at work by some guy who enthusiastically pitched AI to the masses. I don't mean that's what he did, I mean "enthusiasm" seemed to be his ONLY qualification. Aside from telling folks what buttons to press on the company's AI app, he didn't know SHIT. And the VP got on before and after and it was apparent that he didn't know shit, either. Someone is whispering in these people's ears and they're writing fat checks, no doubt, and they haven't a clue what an LLM is, what it is good at, nor what to be wary of. Absolutely ridiculous.
Wouldn't be surprised, since "no" as a full sentence does not exist in tech or online anymore - it's always "yes" or "maybe later/not now/remind me next time" or other crap like that...
On the one hand, it’s insulting to expect people to write entries for free only to have AI just summarize the text and have users never actually read those written words.
On the other hand, the future is people copying the url into chat gpt and asking for a summary.
On the third hand some of us just want to be able to read a fucking article with information instead of a tiktok or ai generated garbage. That's wikipedia, at least it used to be before this garbage. Hopefully it stays true
You are correct that it would not instantly become unusable. But when all editors with integrity have ceased to contribute in frustration, wikipedia would eventually become stale, or very unreliable.
Also there is nothing stopping a person from using an llm to summarize an article for them. And the added benefit to that is that the energy and reasources used for that would be only used on the people that wanted to, not on evey single page view. I would assume the enegy consumption on that, would be significant.
I get that the simple language option exists, and i definitely think I'm not qualified to really argue what Wikipedia should or should not do. But I wanted to share what my lemmy feed looked like when I clicked into this post and I gotta say, I sorta get it.
The United States is transitioning into a post-literate society. Teaching kids to read was too hard, and had the ugly side effect of encouraging critical thinking, and that led to liberalism, or worse, Marxism.
So we're using technology to eliminate reading entirely. After all, if you can ask a LLM any question and get a simple answer read to you out loud in simple vocabulary, what more do you need? Are you going to read for pleasure? To fact check? To better yourself? Sounds like ivory tower liberal elitism to me.
there's a summary paragraph at the top of each article which is written by people who have assholes probably. it's the whole reason to use wikipedia at this point
I mean, the LLM thing has a proper field for deployment - it can handle the translation of articles that just don't exist in your language. But it should be a button a person clicks with their consent, not an article they get by default, not a content they get signed by the Wikipedia itself. Nowadays, it's done by browsers themselves and their extensions.
Good, we don't need LLMs crowbarred into everything. You don't need a summary of an encylopedia article, it is already a broad overview of a complex topic.
Human posting of AI-generated content is definitely a problem; but ultimately that's a moderation problem that can be solved, which is quite different from AI-generated content being put forward by the platform itself. There wasn't necessarily anything stopping people from doing the same thing pre-GPT, it's just easier and more prevalent now.
Human posting of AI-generated content is definitely a problem
It isn't clear whether this content is posted by humans or by AI fueled bot accounts. All they're sifting for is text with patterns common to AI text generation tools.
There wasn’t necessarily anything stopping people from doing the same thing pre-GPT
The big inhibiting factor was effort. ChatGPT produces long form text far faster than humans and in a form less easy to identify than prior Markov Chains.
The fear is that Wikipedia will be swamped with slop content. Humans won't be able to keep up with the work of cleaning it out.
Why would anyone need Wikipedia to offer the AI summaries? Literally all chat bots with access to the internet will summarize Wikipedia when it comes to knowledge based questions. Let the creators of these bots serve AI slop to the masses.
Wikipedia management shouldn't be under that pressure. There's no profit motive to enshittify or replace human contributions. They're funded by donations from users, so their top priority should be giving users what they want, not attracting bubble-chasing venture capital.
It pains me to argue this point, but are you sure there isn't a legitimate use case just this once? The text says that this was aimed at making Wikipedia more accessible to less advanced readers, like (I assume) people whose first language is not English. Judging by the screenshot they're also being fully transparent about it. I don't know if this is actually a good idea but it seems the least objectionable use of generative AI I've seen so far.
A few months ago, a new terminal emulator was released. It's called ghostty, and it has been a highly anticipated terminal emulator for a while, especially due to the coverage that it received from ThePrimeagen, who had been using for a while, while it was in private beta.
This feels like a paid advertisement ”review” to me. There is basically nothing negative or critical at all. No places to improve? Here is the most critical bit in the entire post:
If you use GNOME, you should definitely be giving Ghostty a try. To be completely fair, I did not dislike using it on my other KDE Plasma — based machine either, but it does not feel as “native” yet. One day it will, though…
As you keep navigating through the hamburger menu, one thing you will notice is that, unlike on the default GNOME terminal, there is no graphical Settings menu to speak of here. The reason for that is that Ghostty is so customizable that it would have been pretty much impossible to provide a practical GUI to expose all its configuration options: you need the full expressivity of a configuration file for that.
as making a virtue out of a lack. I really don't buy that "impossible" line. It was just too much work or work they during want to do.
Since the review doesn't mention any downsides I'm gonna go ahead and share one. This might seem like a tiny thing but relatively slow startup turned out to be a total deal breaker for me. In my workflow, I open and close a lot of terminal windows. Sometimes I spawn terminals just for a few seconds to run a single command and then close them. Kitty and Alacritty launch instantaneously whereas Ghostty has a noticeable lag which was just infuriating to me. Also, it doesn't have any useful (for me) features not present in Kitty so yeah, I guess it's not for me.
This is why I use foot in its client-server mode. It allows basically instant startup because the server is already running in the background (even on my Core 2 Duo Thinkpad).
A major missing feature is the ability to search scrollback, i.e. cmd+f on Mac, ctrl+F on Linux. This issue can be implemented in multiple steps, not just one giant PR: Core search functionality in...
Ghostty has scrollback, I have no idea what that person is talking about. I think it is missing scroll bars, but you can scroll using the mouse wheel or shift+pgup/dn. The buffer is also not very big by default but I think it can be changed via config file.
It is very good, and I am currently using it. I don't like its dependencies on GTK stuff, the developer is a little picky about what to support, and I dislike the +options style. Other than that, 👍 .
Also great: Wezterm, Konsole, Rio. I'm excitedly following Rio's development, which has a much smaller dependency list, and hopping back and forth between it and Ghostty/Wezterm. But it's still got some things to iron out and features to develop.
I tried this one and Wezterm, but I just couldn't get past how much vram they use, when vram is still at a premium. Konsole works really well for me anyway, so I guess I don't see the appeal.
Yeah. A lot of the extra nice things about Ghostty come from native macOS features. It's a very different story on Linux, but still a solid terminal emulator there as well.
Ghostty is amazing on macOS. On Linux, it's basically another GTK terminal emulator with a lot of nice configuration options, but nothing that special.
I give it a spin every month or so to see how it’s getting on. I’m on macOS.
Every time I walk away unimpressed, despite its maker’s very deserved esteemed reputation.
I’m probably not seeing something. What I do see, however, is that I can’t search my scrollback history, nor can I select text without a mouse.
Also, pressing cmd+, on macOS opens the config inside TextEditor (yes, a separate GUI app) rather than in $EDITOR. It’s a small thing but I couldn’t figure out how to change it. Coming from Kitty, this drove me mad.
I’m not sure who Ghostty is for. My feeling is it’s aiming to be an excellent, polished experience for casual terminal users. But I didn’t see anything that Kitty or just tmux anywhere can’t do.
Ghostty has lots of issues ssh-ing into remote systems that aren’t on the bleeding edge.
I couldn’t get it to work reasonably well enough for me and tried a bunch of others. Currently using Alacritty on both my Linux desktop workstation and Mac Laptop.
I use Zellij anyway and it has all the tab/pane/floating window support I was looking for.
Yep - but seeing the thread about it in their github repo was also a turn off. I don’t have to do it with other clients.
I also believe that has to happen on each server - and we’ve got a lot of servers. I’m not particularly keen on needing to change anything to get my terminal emulator to, well, work.
While I get the ghostty team’s PoV - I don’t agree with it.
I guess I've been cutting Mitchell some slack since this is a passion project for him - his goal was to build the modern terminal he always wanted, so an opinionated feature set was always expected. And, new terminals with actual new features need their own terminfo entries, it just comes with the territory. It'll sort itself out as the databases catch up.
For now, though, you don't need to address this on an individual host level. I'm in the same boat at work with thousands of servers. If you want to give Ghostty another shot, this wrapper handles the issue automatically, even for servers where AcceptEnv doesn't include TERM or where SetEnv is disabled:
ssh() {
if [[ "$TERM" == "xterm-ghostty" ]]; then
TERM=xterm-256color command ssh "$@"
else
command ssh "$@"
fi
}
Just drop it in your .bashrc (or functions.sh if you rock a modular setup) and SSH connections will auto-switch to compatible terminfo while keeping your local session full-featured. Best of both worlds. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I really appreciate your response. It’s incredibly helpful and deeply thoughtful. Thank you.
What comes next is not directed at you but rather provides some other color based on a few things you touched on.
I worked for the guy. He gets no slack from me. He changed my life in many ways both wonderful and not. And while it’s unlikely I’d work with or for him again he was a net positive in my life.
I don’t see product the way he sees product which is exactly as you note: it’s for him. Some of that “for him” approach has resonated deeply with the OSS community and still does. He changed Cloud Computing in the best of ways. He’s a giant. And we’re lucky he’s around.
This small ghostty issue (and some others I can’t recall now) was emblematic of our core disagreement about how we build systems for a broader user base. That’s why I said I get their PoV but disagree with it. I think it would be fair to say using the product reminded me a lot about this particular tension. Reading the GitHub issues even more so. That’s wholly on me.
I am thankful to ghostty for helping me explore many more options. I had been using iterm2 on my laptop and struggling to find something I liked on my Linux workstation. Checking out the new hotness after all the hype still resulted in a net positive.
Nevertheless I am genuinely happy it’s working for you and, again, thanks for your kind and calm response.
Wow - you've certainly got a unique perspective on the situation, and I'm grateful that you took the time to share it. Thank you. It's fascinating to hear from someone who actually worked with the guy.
I can relate to both the Linux struggle and your "I get their PoV but disagree" reaction. Had the same feeling when Kitty's creator dismissed multiplexers as "a hack" - as a longtime tmux user, that stung. Great tool, but that philosophy never sat right with me. I bounced between most of the more popular terminals for years (Wezterm rocks but has performance issues, Kitty never felt quite right) so I was eager for Ghostty to drop. So far it's delivered on what I was hoping for (despite needing a minor tweak or two out of the box).
I'm glad you found my last response so helpful. Sounds like exploring alternatives worked out well for you in the end, which is what matters. Cheers. 😀
Addresses #4156 and #5892, specifically by implementing @mitchellh's
[request](https://github.com/ghostty-org/ghostty/discussions/5892#discussioncomment-12283628)
for "opt-in shell integra...
If you are happy with the default, then just use the default.
Some of us use the terminal more than any other app, so I like my terminal to be super lightweight and snappy in all situations so it opens instantaneously (I doubt this one is like that though, if it has big dependencies like GTK / Qt), preferably if it does so without sacrificing in features (true color, things like sixel for graphics, allowing to set fallback fonts, maybe font ligatures, being able to set the app-id so my compositor can treat special terminal windows differently, etc).
Oh, yeah. If it's your primary work environment I can see how you could use such features. I use the terminal maybe 1-2 per day, so it's not a priority for me. Thanks for clarifying!
Honestly, I rather like the default XFCE terminal. In fact, I was using it even before I used XFCE back when I was just playing with the default GNOME in VMs before I daily-drove Linux.
Profitez des vidéos et de la musique que vous aimez, mettez en ligne des contenus originaux, et partagez-les avec vos amis, vos proches et le monde entier.
The single explosion destroyed more than 4,000 embryos and over 1,000 vials of sperm and unfertilized eggs. Dr Bahaeldeen Ghalayini, the obstetrician who established the clinic, summed up the implications of the attack in an interview with Reuters: “5,000 lives in one shell.”
The strike was an act of reprocide: the systematic targeting of a community’s reproductive health with the intention of eliminating their future. In the context of Israel’s ongoing genocidal war in Gaza, reprocide serves as a tactic. Indeed, genocide includes its definition, “imposing measures intended to prevent births” within a particular national, ethnic or religious group.
The bombing of the IVF clinic was one spectacular example, but as a Palestinian women’s rights activist from Gaza, I have lived and witnessed how Israel uses reprocide within a settler colonial framework that seeks not only territorial domination but demographic erasure—a process that began long before October 7, 2023.
When I was 15 years old, following the Israeli assault on Gaza in 2008–2009, Israeli soldiers began wearing and distributing t-shirts that depicted a pregnant woman in crosshairs above the slogan “1 Shot 2 Kills.” I recall the fear felt by the pregnant women I knew. The t-shirts prompted people around me to recount stories of pregnant women being killed or wounded during other moments of extreme violence in Palestinian history, from the start of the Nakba in 1948 to the Sabra and Shatila massacres in 1982. Underscoring the eliminationist nature of this violence, Israel remains among the world’s leaders in assisted reproduction technology, actively encouraging birth rates among Jewish citizens.
In an effort to trace the effects of reprocide amid Israel’s ongoing genocidal war, between October 2023 and October 2024, I collected ethnographic evidence—voice notes, text messages, emails and phone calls—from those enduring or witnessing reproductive violence. Analyzing their accounts alongside official reports from Gaza reveals the many ways Israel has weaponized reproduction, some more obvious than others: from the direct assaults on reproductive health and infrastructure to the conditions it forces women and men to reproduce under to sexual violence and its role in reproductive erasure.
The image shows the log of a system update in Arch Linux. Several US mirrors are skipped with error 404, until pacman finds a Canadian mirror to download packages.
It is not happening to every californian mirrors (I'm testing all US mirrors), but it's definitely happening to a lot of them, from Mexico. Is this collateral to what's happening in LA or is it mandated by the government? Do you know anything?
The single explosion destroyed more than 4,000 embryos and over 1,000 vials of sperm and unfertilized eggs. Dr Bahaeldeen Ghalayini, the obstetrician who established the clinic, summed up the implications of the attack in an interview with Reuters: “5,000 lives in one shell.”
The strike was an act of reprocide: the systematic targeting of a community’s reproductive health with the intention of eliminating their future. In the context of Israel’s ongoing genocidal war in Gaza, reprocide serves as a tactic. Indeed, genocide includes its definition, “imposing measures intended to prevent births” within a particular national, ethnic or religious group.
The bombing of the IVF clinic was one spectacular example, but as a Palestinian women’s rights activist from Gaza, I have lived and witnessed how Israel uses reprocide within a settler colonial framework that seeks not only territorial domination but demographic erasure—a process that began long before October 7, 2023.
When I was 15 years old, following the Israeli assault on Gaza in 2008–2009, Israeli soldiers began wearing and distributing t-shirts that depicted a pregnant woman in crosshairs above the slogan “1 Shot 2 Kills.” I recall the fear felt by the pregnant women I knew. The t-shirts prompted people around me to recount stories of pregnant women being killed or wounded during other moments of extreme violence in Palestinian history, from the start of the Nakba in 1948 to the Sabra and Shatila massacres in 1982. Underscoring the eliminationist nature of this violence, Israel remains among the world’s leaders in assisted reproduction technology, actively encouraging birth rates among Jewish citizens.
In an effort to trace the effects of reprocide amid Israel’s ongoing genocidal war, between October 2023 and October 2024, I collected ethnographic evidence—voice notes, text messages, emails and phone calls—from those enduring or witnessing reproductive violence. Analyzing their accounts alongside official reports from Gaza reveals the many ways Israel has weaponized reproduction, some more obvious than others: from the direct assaults on reproductive health and infrastructure to the conditions it forces women and men to reproduce under to sexual violence and its role in reproductive erasure.
The single explosion destroyed more than 4,000 embryos and over 1,000 vials of sperm and unfertilized eggs. Dr Bahaeldeen Ghalayini, the obstetrician who established the clinic, summed up the implications of the attack in an interview with Reuters: “5,000 lives in one shell.”
The strike was an act of reprocide: the systematic targeting of a community’s reproductive health with the intention of eliminating their future. In the context of Israel’s ongoing genocidal war in Gaza, reprocide serves as a tactic. Indeed, genocide includes its definition, “imposing measures intended to prevent births” within a particular national, ethnic or religious group.
The bombing of the IVF clinic was one spectacular example, but as a Palestinian women’s rights activist from Gaza, I have lived and witnessed how Israel uses reprocide within a settler colonial framework that seeks not only territorial domination but demographic erasure—a process that began long before October 7, 2023.
When I was 15 years old, following the Israeli assault on Gaza in 2008–2009, Israeli soldiers began wearing and distributing t-shirts that depicted a pregnant woman in crosshairs above the slogan “1 Shot 2 Kills.” I recall the fear felt by the pregnant women I knew. The t-shirts prompted people around me to recount stories of pregnant women being killed or wounded during other moments of extreme violence in Palestinian history, from the start of the Nakba in 1948 to the Sabra and Shatila massacres in 1982. Underscoring the eliminationist nature of this violence, Israel remains among the world’s leaders in assisted reproduction technology, actively encouraging birth rates among Jewish citizens.
In an effort to trace the effects of reprocide amid Israel’s ongoing genocidal war, between October 2023 and October 2024, I collected ethnographic evidence—voice notes, text messages, emails and phone calls—from those enduring or witnessing reproductive violence. Analyzing their accounts alongside official reports from Gaza reveals the many ways Israel has weaponized reproduction, some more obvious than others: from the direct assaults on reproductive health and infrastructure to the conditions it forces women and men to reproduce under to sexual violence and its role in reproductive erasure.
The single explosion destroyed more than 4,000 embryos and over 1,000 vials of sperm and unfertilized eggs. Dr Bahaeldeen Ghalayini, the obstetrician who established the clinic, summed up the implications of the attack in an interview with Reuters: “5,000 lives in one shell.”
The strike was an act of reprocide: the systematic targeting of a community’s reproductive health with the intention of eliminating their future. In the context of Israel’s ongoing genocidal war in Gaza, reprocide serves as a tactic. Indeed, genocide includes its definition, “imposing measures intended to prevent births” within a particular national, ethnic or religious group.
The bombing of the IVF clinic was one spectacular example, but as a Palestinian women’s rights activist from Gaza, I have lived and witnessed how Israel uses reprocide within a settler colonial framework that seeks not only territorial domination but demographic erasure—a process that began long before October 7, 2023.
When I was 15 years old, following the Israeli assault on Gaza in 2008–2009, Israeli soldiers began wearing and distributing t-shirts that depicted a pregnant woman in crosshairs above the slogan “1 Shot 2 Kills.” I recall the fear felt by the pregnant women I knew. The t-shirts prompted people around me to recount stories of pregnant women being killed or wounded during other moments of extreme violence in Palestinian history, from the start of the Nakba in 1948 to the Sabra and Shatila massacres in 1982. Underscoring the eliminationist nature of this violence, Israel remains among the world’s leaders in assisted reproduction technology, actively encouraging birth rates among Jewish citizens.
In an effort to trace the effects of reprocide amid Israel’s ongoing genocidal war, between October 2023 and October 2024, I collected ethnographic evidence—voice notes, text messages, emails and phone calls—from those enduring or witnessing reproductive violence. Analyzing their accounts alongside official reports from Gaza reveals the many ways Israel has weaponized reproduction, some more obvious than others: from the direct assaults on reproductive health and infrastructure to the conditions it forces women and men to reproduce under to sexual violence and its role in reproductive erasure.
Switzerland's defence ministry has launched an investigation into leaks from the country's intelligence service to Russia's military intelligence, the Swiss news agency Keystone-ATS reported Wednesday.
A man who tried to smuggle £1.2m in suitcases out of the United Kingdom to Lebanon has been jailed for 21 months, following a National Crime Agency investigation.
HP has revealed the first third-party hardware built using Google’s 3D video conferencing technology, Beam. The HP Dimension costs $24,999 and features a 65-inch light field display to create a “true-to-life” 3D video of your caller.
The Food and Drug Administration is planning to use artificial intelligence to “radically increase efficiency” in deciding whether to approve new drugs and devices, one of several top priorities laid out in an article published Tuesday in JAMA.
Another initiative involves a review of chemicals and other “concerning ingredients” that appear in U.S. food but not in the food of other developed nations. And officials want to speed up the final stages of making a drug or medical device approval decision to mere weeks, citing the success of Operation Warp Speed during the Covid pandemic when workers raced to curb a spiraling death count.
“The F.D.A. will be focused on delivering faster cures and meaningful treatments for patients, especially those with neglected and rare diseases, healthier food for children and common-sense approaches to rebuild the public trust,” Dr. Marty Makary, the agency commissioner, and Dr. Vinay Prasad, who leads the division that oversees vaccines and gene therapy, wrote in the JAMA article.
The agency plays a central role in pursuing the agenda of the U.S. health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and it has already begun to press food makers to eliminate artificial food dyes. The new road map also underscores the Trump administration’s efforts to smooth the way for major industries with an array of efforts aimed at getting products to pharmacies and store shelves quickly.
Some aspects of the proposals outlined in JAMA were met with skepticism, particularly the idea that artificial intelligence is up to the task of shearing months or years from the painstaking work of examining applications that companies submit when seeking approval for a drug or high-risk medical device.
“I don’t want to be dismissive of speeding reviews at the F.D.A.,” said Stephen Holland, a lawyer who formerly advised the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on health care. “I think that there is great potential here, but I’m not seeing the beef yet.”
AI - famously known for being right all the time, and never making shit up. It's so reliable we should let it approve drugs. Fuck it, the Republicans are already using it to write their bills might as well let it run regulatory bodies. /s
Discouraging use of ~~artificial~~ dye is a good idea. It interferes with people's ability to make health conscious choices. Requiring labeling would be a great start.
Food dye is used to cover up a lot of food crime. Most of us wouldn't eat food that needs to be dyed to look safe to eat, if it weren't dyed, if we had a choice.
Using AI to fast track food regulations is a terrible idea.
Edit: Good point that "artificial" is part of their witch hunt wording. I only mean we could probably do with less dye use, or clear labels on what has been dyed.
yeah, some people craze over all natural and I tell them some natural ingredients just to see them pause, like beaver bits make vanilla taste better so is a natural addictive. idc, it taste good, but some people question thier vanilla.
Discouraging use of artificial dye is a good idea. It interferes with people's ability to make health conscious choices. Requiring labeling would be a great start.
Except they want “natural” dyes used instead which do the same thing. but “natural” does not necessarily mean better or safer.
Food dye is used to cover up a lot of food crime.
source? i did a brief search but didn’t see anything about.
Most of us wouldn't eat food that needs to be dyed to look safe to eat, if it weren't dyed, if we had a choice.
if you look at that from a different angle, that's food dye preventing food waste. if there’s nothing actually wrong with the food other than appearance.
There is a deeper political issue here as well that I will not get into, but just point out. The recent Supreme Court decision ending Chevron Deference may have played a role here. The question is – who interprets federal regulations? The Chevron Deference standard says that the experts working in the relevant agency would be given deference when interpreting the law. For example, the FDA could determine how to apply the Delaney Clause based upon an expert level understanding of the complexities of toxicity research. The SC ended such deference, meaning that regulations can be interpreted by the courts without deference to experts. One has to wonder if this otherwise odd decision by the FDA was a response to this.
setting the precedent to remove expert opinion of federal law and replace it with court opinion is not good.
The FDA recently removed FD&C Red No. 3 from the list of approved food additives. This was not based on any new data or interpretation of the data, but rather was a response to a petition from fo
Except they want “natural” dyes used instead which do the same thing. but “natural” does not necessarily mean better or safer.
Yeah. I mean, yes - there's a brain worm damaged person heading the FDA.
Food dye is used to cover up a lot of food crime.
source? i did a brief search but didn’t see anything about.
I was specifically alluding to The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. More generally, modern food production is often still disgusting.
Most of us wouldn't eat food that needs to be dyed to look safe to eat, if it weren't dyed, if we had a choice.
so you could argue food dye prevents food waste. if there’s nothing actually wrong with the food other than appearance.
Fair point, which is why I favor labeling. Let people make their own call, with clear labels providing enough information.
setting the precedent to remove expert opinion of federal law and replace it with court opinion is not good.
No disagreement from me.
My point is that we might not be as quick to hand over control to bull-in-china-shop brain-worm victims if we actually regulated things. We missed that window a long time ago, but it needs to be part of the conversation if there's to be a recovery.
The same people who do everything they can to obstruct actual science, including research into vaccines and other medicines. ChatGPT can surely do what actual scientists and experienced health professionals can do. After all, ChatGPT can predict what word a person is likely to say next, so do a convincing impression of someone who knows about medicine. It's probably no coincidence that many of these people are grifters in their own right, and those who aren't are suckers for grifters. They have basic problems appreciating or caring about the difference between real and fake.
Taking a drug that doesn't work is not necessarily the same as taking a placebo. I have suffered a lot from drug side effects, and some have hurt me long-term, years after I stopped taking the medicine. I am incredibly wary of taking anything new, even before all the horrors of 2025. With even worse approval processes, I expect that a lot of harmful and potentially debilitating or deadly stuff is going to end up on pharmacy shelves soon.
Eventually a utopia society will just be filled with A.I. talking to other A.I. and training more A.I. to do A.I. things. No need for humans, those dont have any value.
Niether solution is good but I feel id rather have confidence a drug is safe, even if I had to wait, rather then un-sure but quickly. I understand terminally ill wants quick, but isn't there already a system to get unproven medication, just you accept risk?
Great, now I have to start proof-reading any communications I get from the FDA to make sure it didn't hallucinate a scientific article in the citations. There's going to be so many Vegetative Microscopy proposals.
You really should put testing and verification in the hands of a new and unproven technology just to save a few bucks. Don't worry, the ramifications are trivial, just drug safety.
The same AI that time after time, even when I tell it the version of the app and OS that I'm using, continues to give me commands that are incompatible with my version? If I tell it the command doesn't work it eventually loops back to its original suggestion.
It's not a conservative's problem until it effects them personally. By then it's usually too late, but at least they feel bad about that one issue for a while.
This could be a good use of AI. Since this regime is doing it, and since some of their claims are pretty unrealistic, it probably won't be. But, ML has been used for a while to help identify new drug compounds, find interactions, etc. It could be very useful in the FDA's work - I'm honestly surprised to hear that they're only just now considering using it.
The Four Thieves Vinegar Collective uses some software from MIT ASKCOS that uses neural networks to help identify reactions and retrosynthesis chains to produce chemical compounds using cheap, homemade bioreactors. Famously, they are doing this to make mifepristone available for people in areas of the US without access to abortion care.
You can check it out here. It's a good example of a very positive use-case for an AI/ML tool in medicine.
MicroLab v0.6 Make your own medicine A toast to the dead, for children with cancer and AIDS;A cure exists, and you probably could have been saved. - Felipe Andres Coronel The MicroLab v0.
Furthermore, something can be efficient in different ways depending on the criteria. Something can even be efficient in one context and inefficient in a different one. Efficiency as they use it is too vague.
I have to quibble with you, because you used the term "AI" instead of actually specifying what technology would make sense.
As we have seen in the last 2 years, people who speak in general terms on this topic are almost always selling us snake oil. If they had a specific model or computer program that they thought was going to be useful because it fit a specific need in a certain way, they would have said that, but they didn't.
Different types of AI, different training data, different expectations and outcomes. Generative AI is but one use case.
It's already been proven a useful tool in research, when directed and used correctly by an expert. It's a tool, to give to scientists to assist them, not replace them.
If you're goal to use AI to replace people, you've got a bad surprise coming.
If you're not equipping your people with the skills and tools of AI, your people will become obsolete in short time.
Learn AI and how to utilize it as a tool, you can train your own model on your own private data and locally interrogate the model to do unique analysis typically not possible in realtime. Learn the goods and bads of technology and let your ethics guide how you use it, but stop dismissing revolutionary technology because the earlier generative models weren't reinforced enough get fingers right.
I'm not dismissing its use. It is a useful tool, but it cannot replace experts at this point, or maybe ever (and I'm gathering you agree on this).
If it ever does get to that point, we need to also remedy the massive social consequences of revoking those same experts' ability to have sufficient income to have a reasonable living.
Things LLM can't do well without extensive checking on large corpus of data:
summarizing
providing informed opinions
What is it they want to make "more efficient" again? Digesting thousands of documents, filter extremely specific subset of data, and shorten the output?
Or maybe that is part of the allure of automation: the eschewing of human responsibility, such that any bias in decision making appears benign (the computer deemed it so, no one’s at fault) and any errors - if at all recognized as such - become simply a matter of bug-fixing or model fine-tuning. The more inscrutable the model the better in that sense. The computer becomes an oracle and no one’s to blame for its divinations.
I am convinced that law enforcement wants intentionally biased AI decision makers so that they can justify doing what they’ve always done with the cover of “it’s not racist because a computer said so!”
The scary part is most people are ignorant enough to buy it.
I saw a paper a while back that argued that AI is being used as "moral crumple zones". For example, an AI used for health insurance acts allows for the company to reject medically necessary procedures without employees incurring as much moral injury as part of that (even low level customer service reps are likely to find comfort in being able to defer to the system.). It's an interesting concept that I've thought about a lot since I found it.
I can absolutely see that. And I don’t think it’s AI-specific, it’s got to do with relegating responsibility to a machine. Of course AI in the guise of LLMs can make things worse with its low interpretability, where it might be even harder to trace anything back to an executive or clerical decision.
Your argument becomes idiotic once you understand the actual technology. The AI bullshit machine's agenda is "give nice answer" ("factual" is not an idea that has neural center in the AI brain), and "make reader happy". The human "bullshit" machine, has many agendas, but it would have not got so far if it was spouting just happy bullshit (but I guess America is a becoming a very special case).
LLM does no decision making. At all. It spouts (as you say) bullshit. If there is enough training data for "Trump is divine", the LLM will predict that Trump is divine, with no second thought (no first thought either). And it's not even great to use as a language-based database.
I wouldn't define flipping coins as decision making. Especially when it comes to blanket governmental policy that has the potential to kill (or severely disable) millions of people.
You seem to not want any people to teach you anything. And are somehow completely dejected at such perceived actions.
You seem to not want any people to teach you anything.
No, I don't seem that. I don't like being ascribed opinions I haven't expressed.
I wouldn’t define flipping coins as decision making. Especially when it comes to blanket governmental policy that has the potential to kill (or severely disable) millions of people.
When your goal is to avoid a certain most harmful subset of such decisions, and living humans always being pressured by power and corrupt profit to pick that subset, flipping coins is preferable, if that's the two variants between which we are choosing.
Yeah I'm going to make sure I don't take any new drugs for a few years. As it is I'm probably going to have to forgo vaccinations for a while because dipshit Kennedy has fucked with the vaccination board.
If you can afford it, there is always the vaccines from other countries. It's fucked up that it's come to this and there's even more of a price tag on health.
If it actually ends up being an AI and not just some Trump cuck stooge masquerading as AI picking the drug by the company that gave the largest bribe to Trump, I 100% guarantee this AI is trained only on papers written by non-peer reviewed drug company paid "scientists" containing made up narratives.
Those of us prescribed the drugs will be the guinea pigs because R&D costs money and hits the bottom line. The many deaths will be conveniently scape-goated on "the AI" the morons in charge promised is smarter and more efficient than a person.
Share The source for global inequality data. Open access, high quality wealth and income inequality data developed by an international academic consortium.
In one case, a Hamilton County deputy arrested an autistic 13-year-old in August for saying his backpack would blow up, though the teen later said he just wanted to protect the stuffed bunny inside.
In the same county almost two months later, a deputy tracked down and arrested an 11-year-old student at a family birthday party. The child later explained he had overheard one student asking if another was going to shoot up the school tomorrow, and that he answered “yes” for him. Last month, the public charter school agreed to pay the student’s family $100,000 to settle a federal lawsuit claiming school officials wrongly reported him to police. The school also agreed to implement training on how to handle these types of incidents, including reporting only “valid” threats to police.
Despite the outcry over increased arrests in Tennessee, two states followed its lead by passing laws that will crack down harder on hoax threats. New Mexico and Georgia have laws, more states are in the process.
Despite an outcry over increased arrests in Tennessee, two states — Georgia and New Mexico — followed its lead by passing laws that will crack down harder on hoax threats.
Mathematicians from New York University and the University of British Columbia have resolved a decades-old geometric problem, the Kakeya conjecture in 3D, which studies the shape left behind by a needle moving in multiple directions.
Mathematicians from New York University and the University of British Columbia have resolved a decades-old geometric problem, the Kakeya conjecture in 3D, which studies the shape left behind by a needle moving in multiple directions.
A study from Profound of OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews and Perplexity shows that while ChatGPT mostly sources its information from Wikipedia, Google AI Overviews and Perplexity mostly source their information from Reddit.
But although the city spent roughly $200,000 per homeless resident throughout that time (2019-2023-5 years at most), deaths of homeless people recorded in the county quadrupled, climbing from 113 in 2019 to more than 450 in 2023, according to the most recent data from the Multnomah County Health Department. The rise in deaths far outpaces the growth in the homeless population, which was recorded at 6,300 by a 2023 county census, a number most agree is an undercount. The county began including newly available state death records in its 2022 report, which added about 60 deaths to the yearly tolls.
Homeless residents of Multnomah County now die at a higher rate than in any major West Coast county with available homeless mortality data: more than twice the rate of those in Los Angeles County and the Washington state county containing Seattle and Tacoma. Almost all the homeless population in Multnomah County lives within Portland city limits.
The city responded to an increase in homeless deaths by intensifying encampment sweeps and adding emergency shelter at the expense of permanent housing. Experts say this has perpetuated the problem.
![Evilsandwichman [none/use name]](images/person-80.jpg)
An example of what the AI-generated summary looked like.
Rozaŭtuno
in reply to kewwwi • • •