Meltdown

joined 2 weeks ago
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

"Quething" rather than "quothing" FYI

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

This is not a terrible idea, but making you solve all the yellow before you can solve the puzzle is stupid. If I get the answer right away, just let me enter it!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago

Only if they don't want to be condemned to hellfire for the blasphemy of monotheism

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Wordle 1,368 3/6

⬜⬜🟨🟩🟩
🟩⬜⬜🟨⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

There are plenty of high quality sources, but I don't work for free. If you want me to produce an encyclopedia using my professional expertise, I'm happy to do it, but it's a massive undertaking that I expect to be compensated for.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Your doubts are irrelevant. Just spend some time fact checking random articles and you will quickly verify for yourself how many inaccuracies are allowed to remain uncorrected for years.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

With all due respect, Wikipedia's accuracy is incredibly variable. Some articles might be better than others, but a huge number of them (large enough to shatter confidence in the platform as a whole) contain factual errors and undisguised editorial biases.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I'm a doctor of classical philology and most of the articles on ancient languages, texts, history contain errors. I haven't made a list of those articles because the lesson I took from the experience was simply never to use Wikipedia.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (28 children)

This, but for Wikipedia.

Edit: Ironically, the down votes are really driving home the point in the OP. When you aren't an expert in a subject, you're incapable of recognizing the flaws in someone's discussion, whether it's an LLM or Wikipedia. Just like the GPT bros defending the LLM's inaccuracies because they lack the knowledge to recognize them, we've got Wiki bros defending Wikipedia's inaccuracies because they lack the knowledge to recognize them. At the end of the day, neither one is a reliable source for information.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 week ago

What a weird coincidence that the members of this pedophile cult keep turning out to be pedophiles...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

That's wild. I couldn't imagine having to write documents using only a touchscreen, or having to switch back and forth between PDF and web browser and text editor instead of just putting the windows side by side.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

A gay agenda of peacocks

view more: next ›