Because of who gets to do the considering.

I rather like the idea of having a word for “the conversation is over, I expect no response.” In daily life lol. Feels boss.

The back of the tongue one is annoying and sometimes chokes me while in the middle of talking, but much worse is when the husk is just the right shape so it wedges in at the interface between the back of a tooth and your gum. Shit is IMPOSSIBLE to get out you just have to wait until it feels like it. No amount of poking with your tongue will dislodge it, or even if you try to use your finger and the more you try, the more the sharp corners of the husk fragment stab at the gums which hurts. Feels incredibly satisfying when it spontaneously just comes out though.

I guess compared to the other examples at least she didn’t try and persuade you it wasn’t an animal, just a bit crap at embracing a child’s natural enthusiasm and kind of immediately killing their sense of enquiry by making it in to an experience of being judged.

Was that Douglas Adams? I remember Richard Dawkins using that as an example. I always thought it was a really good analogy.

I mean they could be pretty happy, even joyful I suppose. The ideology is rooted in hatred but I do get the impression it’s rather a lot of fun for a good portion of these guys right up until they’re met with the leopard’s teeth.

I guess you could encrypt your messages in the mail as well.

I reckon it’s probably to do with internally trying to downregulate the smile so it doesn’t look really weird or crazy or fake or stupid and you just overcompensate. You don’t know what you look like while you’re doing it and that information void gives rise to some self consciousness and pre-emptive embarrassment. Natural smiles don’t require you to think about how to do it at all so most people don’t really know how to smile in a socially acceptable way on demand with a few seconds notice. Some people are better at it than others, maybe they have a better intuition, maybe they have a better awareness of what muscle movements correspond to what changes on their face and also a really good grasp of which tiny subtleties lead to a photogenic smile or the grimace of a maniacal murderer. Actors are probably pretty good at it either through intuition or just a lot of practice. I should imagine you could train yourself to be better at it, but it’d feel weird and vain to spend your time doing that so a lot of us just make weirdly flat or stern faces in photos.

If you can actually just enjoy the moment so it makes you smile as a result it’d probably get better results but that idea leads to its whole own self reflexive internal monologue trying to concentrate and force yourself to be happy that probably results in a frown while you summon that concentration.

Et tu brewtus?

Well they believed in the rationale and prescription for what he claimed to achieve so there’s a lot of scope there to forgive failure to meet targets because as they see it, there’s a mountain of opposition and sabotage standing in the way of making America great again so if what he said we was going to do didn’t happen and if the way he said he’d do it didn’t work it’s not really a challenge to either what Trump claims should be done nor how he should do it, it only highlights to supporters how difficult that task is and how strong their support needs to be.

This kind of thing, one of the duped expressing regret - I think is probably one of the most effective ways of bursting the MAGA bubble and letting at least a tiny bit or reality set in. It doesn’t challenge the things the supporters think are wrong with their country nor directly challenge the methods for remedying it, but it would introduce that little kernel of doubt for at least a few people without coming from “removeds” or in some way seeming to criticise the beliefs that led them to their current situation. She’d be dismissed of course; a paid shill no doubt, or a crisis actor or just a traitorous member of the flock who didn’t have the faith or conviction necessary, but if this kind of thing shows up a lot and gets loud enough it might stand more of a chance than any critique of MAGA or Trump if there ever was really any hope of such processes having meaningful impact.

That said, even if that worked, it’d do little to address systemic issues that gave rise to MAGA and in any case if the MAGA cultists take this gentle out without need to re-evaluate the thinking that got them there then really it’d just end up being that Trump was only bad for failing to do what he promised not because what he promised was reprehensible and how he planned to do it absurd and illogical so they’ll be prime for the picking for the next Trump hydra head to take his place.

Doesn’t look like anything to me

What’s AI about delve? I use delve.

I can’t believe this worked lol

There’ve been occassions here on Lemmy when people have responded to questions with AI overviews or chatGPT. They acknowledged that source for the copied text, which I thought was good, and while the answers were generally too vague and hedge betting to really be of massive help they were sometimes at least providing something of an answer to questions for which there could be a definitive or at least actionable answer. The responses were not received well, a lot of downvotes and chiding, there’s a sense that, choosing to do that showed a kind of contempt for the original poster and rest of the forum. Usually the commenter was silent after the downvotes but occasionally would defend on the grounds that they were just trying to be helpful. Assuming good intent, I could empathise, sorta, especially when there were basically no other answers being provided by anyone, though I absolutely have sympathy for the offended in that context too, it really does feel pointless and dismissive more than helpful.

This brings us now to this specific context, on the face of it it could be a question with a definitive answer, like maybe there was an actual specific reason why that particular phrase and not just many similar constructions was being googled at that time, maybe a popular figure said it, or it appeared in some work of narrative fiction and resonated. Had that been the case and had the AI told you that and you copied it here, then providing that answer and even, perhaps to a fault, being so honest as to cite AI just for a simple statement of fact might have been helpful and laudable. However, unsurprisingly it appears to be a much vaguer and more open ended question, or at least it doesn’t seem to have a straightforward answer. That leaves only speculation and discussion, in lieu of hard facts and that’s something for which a forum is well suited. That you got an AI overview on the topic and it had no specific insight only musings makes its inclusion far more aggravating because you’re essentially outsourcing the theoretically enjoyable job of discussion and human connection, for which a forum is ostensibly for, to a machine, for no gain to anyone. I don’t know if you had genuinely good intentions of trying to be helpful, but the sense that, you didn’t have to say anything at all, yet you still felt the need to basically phone it in will inevitably rub people the wrong way. If you didn’t particularly want to engage with this topic or connect with the rest of us and didn’t even have anything useful to say either, what’s this for?

Unlike a lot of Lemmy I don’t think it’s inherently bad to have made use of an AI overview in the initial forming of an opinion or finding information to help you contribute, but since it turned out to be a dead end, that is, it didn’t really know, then simply not saying anything here was always an option.

Also, in the Bond universe a LOT of people seem to know who he is, it’s not public knowledge per se, but like it seems that all major intelligence services have heard of him and also anybody with power and connections and ill-intent.

He kinda operates like a really weird form of special forces than a spy half the time.

It basically needs to be a sea, or at least a very large lake, supporting an eco system of some kind if the body’s not going to removed at any point.

I did the sheets and have been able to leave my house, thanks, but now I can’t leave my town because there’s a single small shrub blocking the only path. Any ideas?

Oh that IS what she meant? she really has only one set of sheets? I was having trouble working out how this was ever a problem for her.

I don’t really get what you mean by preswapping, like you changed the sheets on a spare duvet and just swapped out the entire duvet, but then what about the sheets on the mattress? Or do you just mean you do the entire task of changing the bedsheets unobserved and then tell your wife you’re about to change them and announce that you’ve finished a few seconds later?

Hmm but does that count as spelling? I think that’d be judged separately to punctuation.