Where do you think Grok gets the info?
Elon Musk’s asshole. Duh.
I see x.com screenshots I downvote
Merrian is booming out. It gets it from Grokipedia
Does anyone hate how many people are apparently immediately turning to ai.
Are people really doing this @grok?
“Does anyone hate that everyone is turning to google” – Someone in 1999
yes but also to be fair this is a Twitter user
On the one hand, I think people immediately saying that are mostly being silly, but in the other hand that is a joke for a reason and could be mocking these people. Who knows?
In my experience, it’s the opposite. People start by saying this sort of thing ironically, and then a large subset of people who don’t get the jokes, or any jokes, start doing it seriously. See: The flat earth society, bronies, fetch.
People were already trusting anything and everything without batting an eye. LLMs are just the natural continuation of that.
Bullshit generator on demand at the little cost of burning the planet.
I don’t feel like there’s much difference between this and what happened when google became popular
I agree with you fully
deleted by creator
Where do you think grok gets the info?
At least some of it, it pulls directly out of the ass of musk.
I’ll take the musk of ass over the ass of Musk any day
Sure, let’s ask MechaHitler if the dictionary has a correct definition.
Theyre on twitter. The brain cells died a long time ago.
One of my boys was washing the dishes a couple of weeks ago. The oldest (not the same one) has never washed dishes properly, always not enough detergent and cold water. I’ve gone over and checked to see if the water was hot enough and that it was sudsing. The eldest has come in, said ‘you don’t need hot water or much detergent’. I ignored him as I’ve taught him all this before and he didn’t listen, so he got the shits with me and marched outside. I followed him out after and he gave me a mouthful about how I embarrassed him in front of other family members and I’m a know all know nothing.
Anyway, out comes the AI he subscribes to, and it tells him that ‘yes, hot as it can be withstood if possible as this ensures grease removal, and aiding the detergent in breaking grease down’. I then got another mouthful for being a smart arse and this time it was added with ‘you’re always such a smartarse about it’, when I never said a word to him.
Where does he think AI gets this kind of information from?
You don’t need hot water though? in my family, and guessing my entire culture, we wash with tap water and just scrub until it’s clean
It’s not totally necessary but you’re using a fair bit of detergent if you’re not and making dish life a lot more difficult for yourself. You really should be if you can and as hot as you can stand it. Hot water alone is one of the best solvents out there, I even use it to help break clay down.
You don’t need hot water, it just makes stuff more soluble faster, is more pleasant to wash with, and makes rinsing off the soap WAY faster.
Also, if you rinse off your dishes as soon as you’re done eating, or soak them in hot water, you barely need to scrub.
So, you don’t NEED hot water, it just saves a ton of time. I spend maybe 20 minutes a week total doing dishes. Having a dishwasher helps a lot, too.
I’m sorry your child was lost to AI.
This battle is not over, he’s learning
The sad reality is that people never change their mind in the moment, and if they do, they won’t tell you. People are emotional creatures. His ego was 100% in defense mode. All that said, he could very well use more detergent and warmer water next time. At least as long as his parent isn’t around to see lol.
Yeah nah he’s taken it well in the end. You’re right though, it was ego defense. It’s funny, I recall trying to teach him and his sisters together years ago but he objected, saying it’s something he can work out for himself and I’ve reminded him a couple of times since but it’s never sunk in till this episode and he had to admit I was right about it.
Kids talking back to their parents is as old as time. Before they were lost to AI, it was social media. Before that, it was 4chan or SomethingAwful. Before that it was IRC or forums or newsgroups. Before that it was BBSes and D&D. Before that it was TV and video games and movies and comic books.
On and on and on it goes.
A child reading a comic book and talking back to a parent is definitely not a logical equivalent to a kid using LLM’s habitually and talking back to their parent.
Kids used to read comic books pretty habitually.
Otherwise what’s your point? We’re talking informally here anyway, so what exactly do you mean by logical equivalence?
It’s amazing how many names for things come from a different era. Even “movies” is from “moving pictures” which is how they described a new thing in terms of an old familiar thing, pictures. Also “film” comes from a thin coating of chemical gel on glass photographic plates, which evolved to mean the coating plus the plastic once photography moved from glass plates to flexible plastic rolls. Also, why do we “shoot” movies?
Seconds is one of the weirdest to me.
“Minute” comes from Latin: pars minuta prima, meaning ‘first small part’, i.e. first division of the hour – dividing it into sixty, and “second” comes from pars minuta secunda, ‘second small part’, dividing again into sixty.
Interesting, I never thought about seconds having anything to do with the number 2.
LOL, I didn’t even realize that until I read your comment.
Weird huh? First, second. It’s even spelled the same way, but I never connected the two.
I’m going to guess that shooting comes from pointing the camera at something and pulling a trigger to start, which with the old hardware wasn’t dissimilar to the steps to shoot a machine gun except slightly quieter.
After typing that out I checked and it looks like I guessed right!
Photography used to involve aiming a device by looking down a sight, removing a cap from a barrel (the lens cap from the lens housing), and exploding flash powder to adequately light the scene.
I’d imagine many described it as feeling like facing a firing squad
Interesting then if the term “shot” comes from motion pictures but slipped “backwards” to include still pictures, which had a completely different mechanism.
The earliest cameras had no real “mechanism.” You would prepare a plate, often still wet with chemicals, load it into the camera, bring the camera out of the dark room, set up your subject, who would have to hold still for minutes at a time, and then just…take off the lens cap.
Because what’s the point of an automatic shutter when it takes minutes of exposure to get a viewable image?
Who knows when the term “shot” was first used though.
Also, at no point did still cameras use a hand crank, which is apparently what made early motion picture cameras look like early machine guns.
Original flash photography involved burning gunpowder on time with the shutter. Not dissimilar from being shot at. If anything it is more fitting, regardless of where it was used first. Also, video camera shutters sound awfully a lot like machine guns, and the first ones where cranked exactly libe early machine guns with a side handle.
my experience, it’s not so much a gun trigger as it is a thumb trigger. at least that was our setup. really fun to use with a 35mm doing stop motion
One of the most prolific is canna, which is Latin for reed, tube, or pipe. Turns out you can get a LOT of mileage from that meaning:
Cane: Referring to the plant, walking stick, or slender rod.
Canal: An artificial waterway, from the Latin canalis (pipe/groove).
Channel: A conduit or passage.
Cannon: From Italian cannone, meaning “large tube”.
Canon: A rule or standard (originally from a reed used as a measuring stick).
Cannibal: Historically connected to this root through a complex path involving “Carib”.
Cannister / Canister: A container, often cylindrical.
Cannula: A small tube for insertion into the body.
Canyon: Derived via Spanish cañón (tube/pipe).
Cannoli: Sicilian pastries consisting of a tube-shaped shell of fried pastry dough, filled with a sweet and creamy filling containing ricotta cheese.
Also, “channel” and “canal” are the result of borrowing the same French word (chanel) at two different times (this happened with many words). In Middle English most words were stressed the first syllable, so chanel became “channel”, then by the time it was borrowed again, chanel kept the same French stress on the last syllable and became “canal”.
Salon, saloon.
Neat. I didn’t realize that canon and cannon actually came from the same root.
They have altered the canna, pray they do not alter it any further.
It’s like rolling down the window.
Yeah, that one changed within my lifetime. It’s interesting how “rolling” is even in there.
Say the very first car windows had been electric. It wouldn’t be called rolling down because there was no “rolling” mechanism. But, we probably wouldn’t call it “powering down” or “buttoning down”. We’d probably just say something like “lowering the window”. So… why did whoever coined that term decide to include “rolling” in the name? Especially because you still need the “up” and “down”. You can’t just “roll the window”.
You also “dial” a phone number, even though the mechanism for choosing the phone number hasn’t been a dial in decades. But, at least in that case there wasn’t an obvious name for the process of entering a phone number into the system. A car window just goes up and down, why should it matter if it’s done with a rolling mechanism or a button? Even though you turn a knob to open a door, you don’t “doorknob open” it or “handle shut” the door. You also raise or lower an anchor, you don’t “crank the ank”, even though that would be cooler to say.
I suppose if the first windows were electric, they might have just said “open the window”
For the phone dial, I suppose we could say “key in the number” rather than “dial the number.” Of course with cell phone touch screens they aren’t even physical keys anymore. Though in UI framework terminology, I suppose they aren’t even physical usually still referred to as buttons. Though you don’t “button in the number.”
And while “button” is a verb, it’s used for the original “button” which was a device on clothing used to hold two pieces together. Electronic “buttons” were just named because they resembled these things people were used to on clothing.
I suspect it’s because the first cameras used gunpowder for the flash, long before movies could be a thing.
Makes sense. Also even without that, the camera had a tube-type thing that you aimed at someone, then you pushed a button or pulled a lever that was pretty similar to a trigger. Still seems a bit weird because you’re not sending anything towards your target, you’re just taking in some light from that direction. But if you add the big “boom” from the chemical flash, I guess it seems like a gun.
Grok gives the Roganites a way to feel like they’re verifying information, without needing actual knowledge, or experts, or any reduction in their Dunning-Kruger effect.
They think grok is Jamie.
It sickens me right but there are youtubers out there, small ones, who just record themselves scrolling through a chatgpt response and talking about it to the camera .
Bro just tsll me what you asked it and i’ll get almost the same responss
What? That useless
So that youtuber try answering question with chatgpt?
Here’s the main channel i’m thinking of, i think i’ve seen it with mutltiple now - Adrian Fort
Also one that’s a bit Elon Musk Shill-ey
He’s basically using it to confirm his biases
It sucks because i subscribed after seeing a higher quality talk to camera video from him which didn’t use chatgpt.
That’s kinda worth stealing a bit
I initially read that as “God gives…” and it works either way.
Is that why they do that? I’m sure there’s an ASCII character that looks like the lower case “o”. It would be hilarious to set up an LLM that responds on twitter to that malformed “@Grok” with otherwise bizarre answers. Well, more bizarre than Grok normally answers in its hallucinatory state.
Honestly you could probably do that with a way lighter model than any actual chatbot and just have it return some relevant section from the uncyclopedia
Jamie, pull that up.
Sorry Jaimie, you’re out of a job now.
Technology is AmAZinG!
Oh, another imperial fun fact. There’s 16 frames in a foot of 35mm film. Way easier to remember than how many yards in a mile and all the other things.
It feels weird that film would be measured in feet, while the film size uses mm.
Here’s a fun fact: photography predates film (duh) but the 35mm standard for photography came decades after the 35mm film standard.
Photos were originally taken on plates until Eastman figured out how to put em on a roll. Thomas Edison immediately used this to make one of those early strobe things I forgot the name of. Not long after, they standardized the design. And then wayyyy later, Kodak released 135 film for photography.
Bonus fact: Both capture the same 35x24mm image but they’re physically different sizes because they’re captured in different orientations.
Hooray, now I can say I used my college degree this month!
Bonus fact: Both capture the same 35x24mm image but they’re physically different sizes because they’re captured in different orientations.
Sorta!
So, yes, a 35mm still camera like most of us milennials’ baby pictures were taken with does use the same film stock as a 35mm movie camera. The film is 35mm in overall width, but some of that is taken up with the two rows of sprocket holes.
A normal still camera feeds the film horizontally, and takes a 24x36 mm landscape frame. There are half-frame cameras that, in the same form factor, produce 24x16mm images. On the film, two images take up the same amount of space as a single “normal” image, with a border in between. It’s a little confusing in that, you hold the device in landscape orientation and it shoots a portrait orientation.
Movie film is fed vertically, and you can do an entire lecture on the different aspect ratios it’s captured at. The film in the camera and the film in the projector may actually be different. Part of the reason is audio. Motion picture cameras don’t actually capture audio, that’s a separate team’s job, and we have about a century worth of different technology to send audio with the film to the projector. A typical movie will use a strip on the left side for optical audio, allowing 22x16mm for the image. The image is distorted to be narrower than it should be, and is projected through a lens to widen it back out during projection. There are other permutations to use more or less of the film stock through various means, but that’s the most common standard.
There’s like eight ways to do audio; I mentioned the continuous analog optical track recorded to the immediate left of the frame. You may also find digital audio recorded on the edge outside the sprocket holes, or Dolby digital audio recorded in between the sprocket holes. Or, a digital timecode on the film allows multi-track digital audio stored on optical discs to be synchronized with the projected image. Many film prints include multiples of these technologies because the publisher might not be sure what audio equipment the theater has; You want to be able to play Avengers Versus Lord Of The Rings XVII: This Time It’s Personal in an independent cinema with a projector made in 1970 and at least get analog stereo out of it.
those early strobe things I forgot the name of
Stroboscope
I wound up looking it up and forgot to go back and edit, he called it the Kinetiscope
If I was him, I would have gone with strobulator.
Oh shit, that’s the other word I couldn’t think of! I knew stroboscope sounded too easy
Very cool, and fun
Car tires, I think the world over, are sized in millimeters of tread width, aspect ratio of sidewall height, and inches in rim diameter. A 215-65R 15 is 215mm wide, 65% of 215mm from bead to tread, and fits on a 15 inch rim.
Tire sizes are what happens when metric and imperial have a drunken getaway weekend.
Tire sizes are what happens when an industry centers itself around tetra ethyl lead.
Since 24 frames per second is standard, that means 48 frames in 3 feet, or 2 seconds per yard of film.
I’m glad we can leave all that BS in the past though. US customary units belong to a bygone era just like analog, chemical film does.
Is 35mm both the width and the height of a frame? If so we can then easily use frame as units to convert between metric and imperial.
It is neither! 35mm is the overall width of the film. And, there are many different standards for frame sizes; the same film stock is used for still photography and motion picture photography, both are different. But, a typical 35mm frame is 16mm tall.
The space between the sprocket holes is 25.375mm, or very, very slightly under 1 inch.
Fake news. Film, like all new technologies, was driven by porn, though at the turn of the 20th century, people were far too prudish for full nudity. Hence “footage”.
“Ankleage” and “Thighage” didn’t really catch on.
I thought you were going in the direction of 12 inch dicks with this.
There are still people on Xitter?
I would hardly call Nazis and bots people.
Lots.
Deleted and never looked back
Never even used it once and never looked back
A gold star lemming!
I also use linux
You are talking about one of the most popular social media despite Elon Musk took over it.
This is one of many facts that makes me wish I were from another planet.
Yeah, that actually makes sense. One of those old tech words we just kept using forever.
I thought Grok got its info from the butthole that Elon Musk has in his face.
