Meta has written itself into a solid tyrant role. A million aspiring rebels are happy to play along.

My mother-in-law recently became fed up with Windows and asked me to install Linux for her. I gave her Debian with a Mate desktop.

She loves it. Zero problems. It's been a week and she's using it just fine. No lifestyle upheaval.

Your mother in law asked specifically for Linux?

yes

Same. My experience with the “concept” of Wikipedia was very high until I had the “direct experience” of Wikipedia, and I realized that the encyclopedia of the commons may not have planned for me to be in the commons.

I'm sort of in the middle on this.

Some pages have somebody guarding the party line, anything that goes against that gets reverted. (How can putting an accurate link behind a piece of text be wrong??)

Pages without such guardians I've never had an issue.

Everything I've ever added was kept.

Not absolutely everything I've ever contributed was kept, but definitely a lot of it. I genuinely get the feeling that the modern Wikipedia hatred comes from somewhere other than a few unfortunate edit wars, but I'm not in-tune enough to know.

I’ve seen the nit-pick reversions and I’ve seen clear ones.

But when I hear people really complain somewhere I do tend to assume they were trying to smuggle in some specific messaging and got caught.

This comment is a little light on the reasoning for why you were permabanned.

Someone did the research-digging a while back about this, if you want a third-party view: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45136376

I commented on BrownHairedGirl’s RFA. The most toxic user ever on Wikipedia.

I can assure you, there are those on Wikipedia who committed far worse offenses and they remain.

Like I say - a cesspool that doesn’t respect article writers.

Ah, I see, you were instigating constantly and people were sick of your shit. Seems like a reasonable ban, especially when you violated an IBAN already.

Were you Chris.sherlock/Aussie Article Writer on Wikipedia? Sounds like pot calling the kettle black re: toxic. You had an interaction ban against her FFS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_no...

Same. Even a single sentence with an easily verifiable fact. Reverted in seconds.

Memory is environment-associated. Which is to say, these memories that you have are connected to the environment that you find yourself in. Change your environment and your memory, to a degree proportional to the environment change, breaks.

This is why sometimes you enter a room and forget why you came in.

This can explain the phenomenon referred to in the op. A woman enters a room devoid of estrogen and her memory breaks.

Eh, have you seen any research on this or are you quoting own experience?

All of the claims above wrt memory reads quite mundane and adequately non assertive, but I'm a layperson.

I do believe it's well established that memory is associative. It's why roses are associated with love, because of Valentine's Day. If you see roses or smell roses, you will recall memories of your loved ones maybe, especially if you have given them roses.

Whether the decline in estrogen content of a room can be the dominant mechanism for momentary memory loss is a separate claim and more dubious sounding to me though (estrogen behaving like a pheromone??), but it's not like I have looked into this deeply so idk.

Most people are profoundly conformist in their opinions and very defensive towards the smallest contradiction. It's a conversation-killer. It's the cement that binds society. It is what it is.

I am in fact agreeing with your opinion, however I refuse to accept it without any evidence. And I don't think asking for sources or expressing a contradicting opinion is a conversation killer.

Oh don't let us pinch zoom. That would be a disaster.

Assuming you mean the site - pinch zoom & pan works for me on Windows and iOS?

well android chrome doesn't

Web exports from Godot (and other game engines) played on mobile is a hard place between compatibility, performance, and many other factors. It's getting better, but very slowly. Try on PC

These are their kitchens and living rooms. You leap in swinging your broadsword.

It sounds like an attention thing.

Attention is magic stuff. Putting it on part of your body can make it better. Withdrawing it can make it worse. I suspect that much disease stems from such neglect.

I used to have a chronically stuffed nose. Then I started doing a kind of meditation where I put my attention upon my nose. My nose opened up and I almost never get a stuffed nose anymore.

Are you saying that, in fact, attention is all you need?

It would be nice if they named/prosecuted the people who paid them to perform the attacks.

The FSB? What are you going to do about that. Russia shot down an airliner full of Netherlands citizens and there were no repercussions.

Law enforcement doesn't typically talk about ongoing investigations.

It is what it is. Unless it threatens you. Then it's bad And then you prefer a narrative explaining why it's bad. And then you you propagate that narrative. And then that narrative infects the hive.

Put what you recall on paper, turn it into a screenplay. Let me know how quickly you get sued.

Good artists copy, great artists steal.

Trillion dollar companies license.

One could argue most screenplays are derivative.

I heard somewhere there's like eight basic plots or something. and everything else is just an elaboration on that

Hollywood has extraordinarily well-defined controls for keeping things legal and everyone in the chain compensated. Plus a separate Oscars category for it.

True, they live in your head rent free. But if you produce a derivative work, you have to pay.

Derivative work has a specific and narrow definition that's not applicable here. You don't have to pay anyone when you answer questions for money.

OP says he has movies in his head and doesn't have to pay royalties. I told him that if he produces a derivative work, he has to pay royalties. Your comment doesn't follow, but I'll address it.

A trivia host doesn't have to pay royalties to ask questions, and the players don't have to pay royalties to answer them. If that turns into "movie night" at the bar then they have to pay royalties to screen the full film. If a professor plays clips in film class, he doesn't.

Your implication is that an LLM is little more than an brilliant film scholar or exceptionally well-read librarian, and that the matter is settled. The billions of dollars in play across a dozen active court cases say it isn't.