jaggs

40 ms·

871.
by jaggs 4y ago
That's very interesting. Thanks. Do you know of any reports which aren't alarmist which we can view?
872.
by jaggs 4y ago
Take a look at one of the articles, (eg this one - https://www.cnet.com/personal-finance/credit-cards/does-it-h... ) and it's easy to see why these pages are generating a lot of page views. This page is clearl
873.
by jaggs 4y ago
Good point. This is more a Reddit post.
874.
by jaggs 4y ago
It's been SEO gamed to death. They're trying to fight back with the Helpful Content Update, but it may be too little too late. The rise of AI writers is only making things worse. It's a shame.
875.
by jaggs 4y ago
I apologise. In my defence, it's only geo-engineering which gets me so riled up. But of course you're right, and I should, and will, tone it down completely. (I'm not sure I have been guilty of 'fulmination' though
876.
by jaggs 4y ago
Who knows? Nobody, especially on a global scale, which is what they're suggesting.
877.
by jaggs 4y ago
How interesting that a bunch of tech nutcases now want to geoengineer the planet by dispersing sulphur into the stratosphere to dim the sun to 'tackle' climate change. Mind-blowing stupidity.
878.
by jaggs 4y ago
Happy Holidays!
879.
by jaggs 4y ago
But that's not what this LinkedIn tool is. It's just another way to spam online forums with extremely poorly created content. Generative AI text content is really not that good right now, unless you're happy with mediocre re-
880.
by jaggs 4y ago
Precisely.
881.
by jaggs 4y ago
Wash them.
882.
by jaggs 4y ago
http://www.hnreplies.com/
883.
by jaggs 4y ago
Heh, glad to help with your due diligence. Although I'm a little perturbed that I 'single handedly' caused you to change your mind. Maybe some additional, and more reliable, sources might be worth investigating to get a full
884.
by jaggs 4y ago
Time For The Planet - https://lnkd.in/et9T7UDY Crowdfunded climate project incubator. Open source, B-corp non profit equivalent. Been going 3 years.
885.
by jaggs 4y ago
I think OP fears for a world where we're awash in thousands of fake content posts which obliterate real valuable connections. It's probably not going to end well.
886.
by jaggs 4y ago
Yeah, there's something going on here, isn't there?
887.
by jaggs 4y ago
This is exactly one of the major problems. What happens if a free for all is triggered? Do we get carrier group diplomacy standoffs in various regions to stop nations doing their own bit of engineering? Does the UN step in? So what if it do
888.
by jaggs 4y ago
Indeed :)
889.
by jaggs 4y ago
Oh? Well that explains a LOT. That's why it's been repeatedly getting so much traction on Hacker News lately. Baseline commercialism is such a wonderful thing.
890.
by jaggs 4y ago
A MUCH better idea - which will actually change the situation rather than just mask it like this one - is to work towards significantly reducing our emissions. A second idea is to try and reduce our unconstrained consumption. A third idea i
891.
by jaggs 4y ago
I think you're missing the point a little. Which is that for this to 'work' in any meaningful sense, it has to be scaled up to a planetary level of significant dispersion. This will almost certainly have consequences which we
892.
by jaggs 4y ago
Go for it!
893.
by jaggs 4y ago
What you people fail to realise is you're playing with the world, not just your backyard. You have absolutely NO IDEA what the unintended consequences of a planetary scale exercise like this could be. And it could be catastrophic for a
894.
by jaggs 4y ago
Actually the technology is NOT good. https://archive.vn/AgLi8 "The scariest thing about this proposition is that models suggest that many of the people who could well be most harmed by these technologies are already di
895.
by jaggs 4y ago
Brilliant idea. :)
896.
by jaggs 4y ago
There seems to be a current attempt to get this kind of dangerous nonsense accepted as 'normal'. No doubt the next step is to go for some public support from a 'celebrity' en route to a fully funded trial. Awful awful aw
897.
by jaggs 4y ago
I don't think that link says what you think it does. Nuclear is very slow.
898.
by jaggs 4y ago
No.
899.
by jaggs 4y ago
Agreed.
900.
by jaggs 4y ago
Hallelujah! At last.

More ›