Uhh… yeah, goddamn. The Daily Beast citing the Daily Mail as their source is really something. Not only do we not use them as a source on Wikipedia, and not only was this the first source ever to be deprecated there in this way because of how egregious they are, but we don’t even allow their online historical archives because they’ve been caught faking those too.

The Daily Mail isn’t a rag; it’s sewage. It single-handedly motivated the idea that there are sources bad enough that Wikipedia just prohibits their usage everywhere (except in rare cases in an about-self fashion, but I don’t know if editors would even trust that anymore). The Daily Beast isn’t the pinnacle of credible journalism, but it isn’t abysmal either.

Edit: sorry, here’s a source instead of just “my source is that I made it the fuck up.”

This is entirely correct, and it’s deeply troubling seeing the general public use LLMs for confirmation bias because they don’t understand anything about them. It’s not “accidentally confessing” like the other reply to your comment is suggesting. An LLM is just designed to process language, and by nature of the fact it’s trained on the largest datasets in history, practically there’s no way to know where this individual output came from if you can’t directly verify it yourself.

Information you prompt it with is tokenized, run through a transformer model whose hundreds of billions or even trillions of parameters were adjusted according to god only knows how many petabytes of text data (weighted and sanitized however the trainers decided), and then detokenized and printed to the screen. There’s no “thinking” involved here, but if we anthropomorphize it like that, then there could be any number of things: it “thinks” that’s what you want to hear; it “thinks” that based on the mountains of text data it’s been trained on calling Musk racist, etc. You’re talking to a faceless amalgam unslakably feeding on unfathomable quantities of information with minimal scrutiny and literally no possible way to enforce quality beyond bare-bones manual constraints.

There are ways to exploit LLMs to reveal sensitive information, yes, but you have to then confirm that sensitive information is true, because you’ve just sent data into a black box and gotten something out. You can get a GPT to solve the sudoku puzzle, but you can’t then parade that around before you’ve checked to make sure the puzzle is correct. You cannot ever, under literally any circumstance, trust anything a generative AI creates for factual accuracy; at best, you can use it as a shortcut to an answer which you can attempt to verify.

Oh god, it’s real.

The fact this comment is so low means one of three things:

• A shocking amount of /c/news readers have a subscription to The Wall Street Journal
• A shocking amount of /c/news readers interact in the comments without reading the article first
• A shocking amount of /c/news readers already know you can use archive.today to bypass paywalls (based tbh)

https://codeberg.org/

For comparison, if you had a deck of 52 playing cards and shuffled them into a random order, then checked a year later to see if they were in the same order as when you opened the box, reshuffled if they weren’t, and repeated another year later, and so on…

We can use the cumulative distribution function of the geometric distribution 1 - (1 - p)^k, where p is the per-trial probability and k is the number of trials, to find the chance that you’ll find at least one correctly sorted deck from now until the time in this paper. There’s a… Well, SageMath failed because of the exponent, but Wolfram Alpha tells me, uhhhhh…

Yeaaaaaaaaah, we’re not going anywhere any time soon.

blame will still be placed on the war.

Yes, it will, and to a large extent rightly so. I’d hope you understand that this insane fucking whiplash means the following:

1. Logistics have been made more complicated and therefore expensive.
2. Some companies have probably already made expensive changes based on this that can no longer be turned back.
3. Companies (especially small businesses) now feel like they have to “make hay while the Sun shines”, i.e. make money while Trump isn’t tarrifing our biggest source of imports at a gajillity-billion percent. This way they don’t go bankrupt the next time Trump decides to collapse the economy from his phone on the toilet. (EDIT: And to be clear, Trump himself is explicitly saying he will 90 days from now. No remotely stable business is going to say "oh, okay, we’ll just make all of our financial decisions based on this three-month window of quasi-normalcy and not account for the indefinite period of fuckery that’s all but certain to follow.)
4. Consumers (correctly) being worried over this means they’re (correctly) less likely to buy product. If businesses want to stay in business, they either need to downsize or sell each item for more.
5. EDIT: China also isn’t our only trading partner. Exorbitant new tariffs on other countries still exist and still massively impact prices.

I’m 100% certain there are things I’m failing to consider here. Trump moved past the point on the curve where deformation can be considered elastic.

9gag-ass meme tbh

The original AP article so you don’t have to use the slop site it’s syndicated to.

Maybe my farmer’s market is really lax, but I’ve seen people sell young plants there (also mushroom starters, which I thought was super cool but had no room for).

Transvestigators: “Trans X will never be real X!”

Also transvestigators: “Trans X are apparently so functionally indistinguishable from biological X that you can’t tell the difference from thousands of hours of footage (including their voice) from public appearances and paparazzi voyeurism taken at almost every possible angle over dozens of years, including childhood pictures. Instead you need to resort to convoluted, pseudoscientific, irreproducibly arbitrary, per-person diagrams of what you allege is their skeleton. This applies to dozens of celebrities. But they’ll never be a real X tho!”

Transvestigators are scum, but I feel if I were trans that these “investigations” of obviously and openly cis people would make me feel more affirmed than basically any other form of external validation.

It’s a job that only exists in capitalism

Not true. Government-sponsored propaganda campaigns need advertisers (“ads” are just corporate propaganda), public works projects need to be advertised for awareness, politicians will need people to advertise their candidacy, political movements will advertise their positions, and unless this is a command-control economy where one thing is delegated to exactly one entity, you’ll probably be advertising some service or product you do or make.

Was going to say that The Onion put the decimal one place too far to the left.

Outdated on Windows? Because on Linux, the LibreOffice UI is great, imo.

Lee-bruh is definitely the way to go since it fluidly connects to the first syllable of “office”. If you do “lib-ray” or “lee-bray”, you’re forcing a ton of unnecessary annunciation on yourself.

Should I have added “nationalize it and make future research funded and owned by the public”? (A lot of public funding already goes to medical research, but the profits get privatized.)

Private corporations researching medications so they can price gouge the chronically ill through a copyright-enforced monopoly isn’t the only way to do medical research.

Nah, should’ve been prior to the gender-affirming surgery.

Alternative: send Vertex Pharmaceuticals’ board to the guillotine and make the medication available for pennies per 50-milligram pill (at cost) or free (publicly funded).

Correct and not at the same time. I’ll use Wikipedia as a source to hopefully show you that I’m in a position to understand some of the nuances.

1. Never, ever, ever cite Wikipedia in formal writing unless it’s to cite some meta aspect of the project itself (such as “this article was 5879 words long as of 4 May 2025”). If you really do need to formally cite Wikipedia, always make sure to grab a permanent URL for the current revision.
2. If you already know a fact but just need it cited, look at the inline citation in the article, evaluate the source, and use it if it’s to your liking.
3. You don’t necessarily have to look at Wikipedia’s sources at all if you don’t want to. You can look at something stated on there then go out and try to find more in-depth information about it if we just cover it in a sentence or two with a shallow citation doing the bare minimum to support only what we say.
4. There are some subtle qualities to articles you only pick up on as an experienced editor, but here are some less vibes-based things: does the article have a little grey or blue padlock at the top right on desktop? Those are protection templates, and they prevent IPs and very new editors from changing the article. Is there a green circle or a bronze star at the top right on desktop? Those represent a good article and a featured article, respectively. A good article has been peer-reviewed by an experienced editor, and a featured article has been peer-reviewed by at least several highly experienced editors. These articles are routinely scrutinized to make sure they keep up their overall quality, and this status can be removed if they deteriorate.
5. Wikipedia legitimately has high standards for the information presented – way higher than when teachers were (absolutely correctly) panicking about students sourcing it in their writing. In 2012 – 13 years ago, when I would consider Wikipedia to have had much lower standards than it does today – it was found that its information about psychological disorders was of higher quality than Britannica and a psychiatry textbook. 2012 Wikipedia was still climbing its way out of the hole that Wikipedia stopped digging around 2006 when it implemented quality standards, and it’s vastly better in 2025 than in 2012.
6. There’s honestly nothing that wrong with using Wikipedia as a source in casual disputes over popular topics. For how many Mughal casualities there were in some obscure 1608 battle? Yeah, probably continue on to the source the article cites instead. For the date of JFK’s assassination? Just take it at face value, to be honest. For something where you just want to give someone a casual overview of the topic? Really just link them to Wikipedia; it’ll likely do a better job than you unless the subject is very underdeveloped there or unless you’re a subject matter expert.
7. As for using Wikipedia as a source in your own private life when you just need to check something? In that case, just try to keep in mind your own level of familiarity with the subject, how obscure the subject is, how contentious the subject is, if the article overall looks well-cited or if it looks/sounds like someone just injected their own original research, if the inline source looks credible (this last one doesn’t guarantee anything; if you want a guarantee, check the source yourself to ensure it says what Wikipedia says it does), if it’s plausible that Wikipedia isn’t showing the full context here, and if the consequences of an inaccurate understanding are worth risking.
8. If you see something on Wikipedia that’s uncited or poorly cited, please either remove it or attempt to find a robust citation for it. It helps a lot.

Damn, I’m usually an uptight fuck and think furries often bring this aspect of their identity into places where it isn’t appropriate, but I think the judge has a stick up their ass here and 100% agree with drag. The judicial branch is a joke when this fucking chode gets to treat the highest court in the land as his fascist rubber stamp, but these people get their complaint stricken by a magistrate judge for a cute, harmless cartoon of a dragon.