Khrux

I do agree entirely. If I could use the internet of 2015 I would, but I can't do so in a practical way that isn't much more tedious than asking an LLM.

My options are the least rancid butter of the rancid butter restaurants or I churn my own. I'd love to churn my own and daydream of it, but I am busy, and can barely manage to die on every other hill I've chosen.

Compared to crypto and NFTs, there is at least something in this mix, not that I could identify it.

I've become increasingly comfortable with LLM usage, to the point that myself from last year would hate me. Compared to projects I used to do with where I'd be deep into Google Reddit and Wikipedia, ChatGPT gives me pretty good answers much more quickly, and far more tailored to my needs.

I'm getting into home labs, and currently everything I have runs on ass old laptops and phones, but I do daydream if the day where I can run an ethically and sustainably trained, LLM myself that compares to current GPT-5 because as much as I hate to say it, it's really useful to my life to have a sometimes incorrect but overalls knowledgeable voice that's perpetually ready to support me.

The irony is that I'll never build a server that can run a local LLM due to the price hikes caused by the technology in the first place.

I heard a theory (that I don't believe, but still) that Deepseek is only competitive to lock the USA into a false AI race.

As much as I don't disagree, I think the "Apple is closest to Nazism" comment touches on something different. Other massive American companies have awful practices but they don't care particularly how their way of making money looks. Apple wields a specific aesthetic power that generally dictates a hegemonic uniformity, that strays the line of being to their detriment at times. I don't think any other big tech company would care in the same way if not for their desire to copy Apple.

I'd love to see US bases go, but I'm not convinced a lack of trust in America would be the tipping point when they haven't behaved in a trustworthy way ever really. America would find some way to make any country that rejected a US military presence experience difficulty, be that via tariffs or vague threats about their military absence.

Funnily enough, when I do ask an LLM to rephrase anything I write, it changes any sentence with a semicolon to one with an em dash. I've probably always overused the semicolon because of its availability on a keyboard, but it appears a lot in my normal work.

Now I trust the semicolon, it's an identifier of me.

Blurry photos is fine to make an stylistic choice. The 2019 movie The Lighthouse stylistically looked like a 1920s film, before modern music intentionally used bitcrushing, it used vinyl cracks, boomer shooters made in this decade intentionally look like 1990s Doom clones.

When a medium's shortcoming is patched by technology, it ultimately becomes an artifact of the era where it was accidental. Once a few years have passed, it becomes more synonymous with the era than the mistake.

It's not necessarily nostalgia, Gen Alpha and the younger half of Gen Z never grew up without smartphones, so they don't miss the era of poor film photography. Although every generation does this simulation of forgotten mistakes, it's particularly poignant now, where the high quality, perfectly lit, professional feeling photos convey something artificial, i.e. smartphone software emulating camera hardware, faces tuned with filters or outright AI generated content. Even if it's false imperfection, the alternative is false perfection.

Art using deliberate imperfections that were unavoidable in the past is romanticising something perceived as before commercialism, and that's admirable.

People disagree because it's still an abstraction of camo. Wearing it in the first place came from people fawning over militarism.

I actually think it can work with a queer look in one of two ways, so you are likely fine: Either it's effectively teasing the pro authoritarian militarism camo types, or it's a radical anarchy armed rebel look, which without praxis is really just the former look again. Either way these are fine.

Another reason maybe you've been downvoted is that people loathe the deep abstraction of modern, or rather postmoderm society. Camo was made for soldiers > Camo was worn by patriotic civilians simulating the soldier aesthetic > particularly under the Bush administration, it became less a symbol of soldiers, and more a symbol of patriots. Patriotism is nationalism.

Today when most of us camo in the military cosplaying way, we think 'nationalist'. When we see a person in a little bit of camo, perhaps just some came shorts and a regular t-shirt, we think either 'nationalist', 'okay with nationalism' or 'ignorant of nationalism'.

So when most people see someone in a blended queer and camo look, they probably assume one of three things: 'ignorant of nationalism', 'critical of nationalism in a rebellious manner' or 'pro nationalist queer'. Of course one of these is fine, but one is very bad.

This isn't really the gen Z stare, I'd describe that as a very neutral expression.

Honestly I don't actually think the Gen Z stare has much to do with the internet or COVID either, as much as it's just something that caught on among people in school. I think another large element is that Gen Z culturally a lot less judgemental of people who don't mask autistic traits.

The general nodding and 'mmhmm'ing we do to affirm we're paying attention is something that's effectively a social contract, although useful. The flip side of the Gen Z stare that people don't talk about is that Gen Z also don't mind recieving the Gen Z stare, and can converse through it.

I could tell from mthe outset that this was going to be sexist, probably the fact it took the stance of "men do x" over "men also do x", but I didn't anticipate the final line being outright misogyny.

There is less pre-modern art by women because women were either censored or indoctrinated into roles where they couldn't create, which is the primary sin of the patriarchy.

There is a myth of men knowing love because the myth of the powerful, rational man doesn't accommodate for this, and what perpetuates that myth? That's right, the patriarchy again.

It's heartbreaking to see someone see through the patriarchal myth of masculinity and arrive at the conclusion that men are objectively better at creation and love than women

I think it's just a silly reading, pretending point 4 is madness over point 3.