Poisoning what? Intentional poisoning doesn’t work, and self-consumption only works when it’s the exact same model feeding its own next version.

There’s this:

• https://www.popsci.com/technology/billionaire-freedom-city-greenland/

Breaking NATO also has a chance of destroying the USD, which could be related to these:

• https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/14/trump-crypto-conflict-interest
• https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/18/trump-financial-products-conflicts-of-interest

Women using sycophantic chatbots that they 100% control, is stil about power and control. One is about bodies, the other is about minds, that’s the only difference.

Is it a majority stake? In the video, he makes it sound like they’re co-owners… which says nothing, and the “our brands” wording is also common as a hyperbole.

If they earn money from pushing quality content, adding similar channels, adding Patreon financing, backer-only specials, merchandising, placing content on other platforms… “the other shoe” could be simply making a profit.

Whether Electrify will eventually sell out in turn, is a separate question.

When one has 20 million subscribers who get notified of the videos, those few cents per Ad, add up quickly. He’s also worked his ass off on the quality side of YouTube, which has earned him a lot of good will and supporters.

Goes to show that quality content, can also be profitable. It’s not all about the bottom dwellers.

I’m sorry to say this, but it sounds like you got duped, hard.

When estimating support numbers, remember the 90-9-1 rule. In opinion creating spaces, most of the Creators and Contributors are interested actors. What you thought were large numbers of “fellow people”, were most likely opinion creators, grifters, and a small number of genuine believers. The bulk of real people, were most likely the lurkers whom you never saw or heard from, and who likely held all sorts of different opinions.

Your one vote was barely relevant, the important part was to plant a series of messages in the minds of those silent 90%. Once the goal has been achieved, and the opinion space no longer needed, those genuine believers get discarded, and the next opinion creation space is spun up with the same formula.

Depending on how much is “too much power”, people might still want to purchase them at a discount for self-hosting purposes. The future is most likely to go through a decentralization of AI services, with spme higher efficiency large providers, combined with lower efficiency edge nodes for less demanding usage… at least, until the next order of magnitude technological shift.

Check the history of ReCaptcha: it started by helping digitize booksxfir the Gutenberg Project, then once it got acquired by Google, it switched to house numbers, street signs (auto driving?), and is now helping with object identification.

Strictly speaking, math gets proven from scratch by every math student. Software is slightly different, since most of it never gets a formal proof at all.

Me. Tiny strong magnets, are good for reasonably strong attraction at short distances. Uses so far:

• Magnetic latches for small parts drawers (2 per drawer, 50 drawers)
• Press-fitting a bunch, into molten plastic holes on the back of a digital thermometer (heat makes them lose strength, so the stronger they start, the better)
• Signal for a hall effect sensor (1 sensor, n magnets)

They should always be securely glued in place, though.

I’ve seen people use thinner ones, inside the lid of a gift box, as a latch. Also as a magnet for a LED throwie.

The problem, is stupidity like this:

Science for Kids: DIY Magnetic LED Lights

Don’t let dumb kids anywhere near them! 🤦

I can answer the “let alone 100” part: they get sold as cubes of 216, 512, 1000 tiny magnet balls, or as packs of 80, 100, 200, etc. tiny magnets.

Why would anyone swallow them… the sale is restricted to 13+ or 18+ in most places, but some (including parents) are unaware of the dangers, and they go for like $2 for 100pcs.

Well… Magnemite

No… Google’s 😆

This is what I get:

Using a complex GPT-4o prompt, they sought to pull out tweets that focused on “superficial topics”

Wait a moment… They asked an LLM, to tell them what was “junk”, and another LLM, trained on what an LLM marked as junk, turned out to be a junk LLM?

It talks about model collapse, but this smells like research collapse.

deleted by creator

scientific fields such as space exploration

I’m having a weird experience with Google’s “Discovery” feed. Apparently, I’ve blocked enough keywords and sources (~100), that all it shows now, is science, tech, and space. Makes me… want to check it from time to time? 😅

Yes. The issue is the accepted belief (among professionals) that “IQ doesn’t change through life”… which is nice as a goal to develop a less biased “ideal IQ test”, but also a really bad preconception when evaluating actual IQ test results.

There are many preconceptions like that in psychology, they need a periodic kick in the butt from actual data.

The problems found on an IQ test are of a very specific nature. “Complete the following number sequence”, “Which of these shapes doesn’t belong”, etc.

A full IQ test has more kinds of problems than that, some of them more open ended and with multiple possible answers. It’s still kind of a mess, the tests need to be kept secret to have any value, and the interpretations of what is a valid answer, are sometimes dubious.

The problem comes from people responding to them, in communities that are text-first. You can flag a person as a troll… but unless you ban them, then eventually the discussions spill over.

Overwatch doesn’t have that same issue, because text is not at its core; you can mute people, and keep playing the game. Game-disrupting players though, still get banned.

That would work, if it wasn’t individuals who don’t see others as people. The moment someone dehumanizes others, there are dedicated professional who can babysit them back to sanity.