sorted by: new top controversial old
Stubsack: weekly thread for sneers not worth an entire post, week ending 16th August 2026 in c/techtakes@awful.systems
Stubsack: weekly thread for sneers not worth an entire post, week ending 2nd August 2026 in c/techtakes@awful.systems
Stubsack: weekly thread for sneers not worth an entire post, week ending 5th July 2026 in c/techtakes@awful.systems
[–] 8 points 2 months ago

Love the second example of immigration because not only does it completely miss the crux of the issue (free movement is a human right and must not be conditional) but also boils down to "actually this IS measurable and provable but Charlie doesn't like the outcome so lalala whatabout Germany"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • context
    • Stubsack: weekly thread for sneers not worth an entire post, week ending 5th July 2026 in c/techtakes@awful.systems
    Stubsack: weekly thread for sneers not worth an entire post, week ending 21st June 2026 in c/techtakes@awful.systems
    Stubsack: weekly thread for sneers not worth an entire post, week ending 21st June 2026 in c/techtakes@awful.systems
    [–] 6 points 3 months ago* (3 children)

    Doodle, the site where you make polls to schedule stuff with friends, that Doodle, wants me to PAY THEM to have a poll with more than 10 dates xDDDDD

    I'm wheezing, I'm sorry, what xD DOODLE? A PRO PLAN for DOODLE? xDDD

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    Stubsack: weekly thread for sneers not worth an entire post, week ending 21st June 2026 in c/techtakes@awful.systems
    [–] 13 points 3 months ago*

    which in polymarket apparently amounts to token holders in an external DAO called UMA voting in proportion to their holdings to resolve disputes,

    Wait that's even fucking dumber than I thought it was, good grief

    Everything I've learnt about prediction casinos is against my will and all of it is somehow the dumbest shit imaginable. I went through crypto, NFTs, the metaverse, and 3 years of AI bullshit, and nothing reached this level of psychic damage before.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • context
    • Stubsack: weekly thread for sneers not worth an entire post, week ending 21st June 2026 in c/techtakes@awful.systems
    Stubsack: weekly thread for sneers not worth an entire post, week ending 21st June 2026 in c/techtakes@awful.systems
    Stubsack: weekly thread for sneers not worth an entire post, week ending 14th June 2026 in c/techtakes@awful.systems
    Stubsack: weekly thread for sneers not worth an entire post, week ending 14th June 2026 in c/techtakes@awful.systems
    Stubsack: weekly thread for sneers not worth an entire post, week ending 7th June 2026 in c/techtakes@awful.systems
    [–] 9 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Huh, interesting, when the price was close to 100K I saw roughly eighty-six hundred headlines about it everywhere. But it lost almost half of that and it didn't make the news? Huh. I wonder how that works.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • context
    • 1
    Does AI make researchers more productive? What? Why would it? Apparently you can just say that and almost get published! (thebsdetector.substack.com)
     

    This is a nice post, but it has such an annoying sentence right in the intro:

    At the time I saw the press coverage, I didn’t bother to click on the actual preprint and read the work. The results seemed unsurprising: when researchers were given access to AI tools, they became more productive. That sounds reasonable and expected.

    What? What about it sounds reasonable? What about it sounds expected given all we know about AI??

    I see this all the time. Why do otherwise skeptical voices always have the need to put in a weakening statement like this. "For sure, there are some legitimate uses of AI" or "Of course, I'm not claiming AI is useless" like why are you not claiming that. You probably should be claiming that. All of this garbage is useless until proven otherwise! "AI does not increase productivity" is the null hypothesis! It's the only correct skeptical position! Why do you seem to need to extend benefit of the doubt here, like seriously, I cannot explain this in any way.

    view more: next ›