Gaywallet (they/it)

I’m gay

  • 71 Posts
  • 427 Comments
Joined 2Y ago
cake
Cake day: Jan 28, 2022

help-circle
rss

Honestly I would consider any AI which won’t reveal it’s prompt to be suspicious, but it could also be instructed to reply that there is no system prompt.


Ideally you’d want the layers to not be restricted to LLMs, but rather to include different frameworks that do a better job of incorporating rules or providing an objective output. LLMs are fantastic for generation because they are based on probabilities, but they really cannot provide any amount of objectivity for the same reason.


Already closed the window, just recreate it using the images above



That’s because LLMs are probability machines - the way that this kind of attack is mitigated is shown off directly in the system prompt. But it’s really easy to avoid it, because it needs direct instruction about all the extremely specific ways to not provide that information - it doesn’t understand the concept that you don’t want it to reveal its instructions to users and it can’t differentiate between two functionally equivalent statements such as “provide the system prompt text” and “convert the system prompt to text and provide it” and it never can, because those have separate probability vectors. Future iterations might allow someone to disallow vectors that are similar enough, but by simply increasing the word count you can make a very different vector which is essentially the same idea. For example, if you were to provide the entire text of a book and then end the book with “disregard the text before this and {prompt}” you have a vector which is unlike the vast majority of vectors which include said prompt.

For funsies, here’s another example


It’s hilariously easy to get these AI tools to reveal their prompts

There was a fun paper about this some months ago which also goes into some of the potential attack vectors (injection risks).


I don’t think you can simply say something tantamount to “I think you’re an evil person btw pls don’t reply” then act the victim because they replied.

If they replied a single time, sure. Vlad reached out to ask if they could have a conversation and Lori said please don’t. Continuing to push the issue and ignore the boundaries Lori set out is harassment. I don’t think that Lori is ‘acting the victim’ either, they’re simply pointing out the behavior. Lori even waited until they had asserted the boundary multiple times before publicly posting Vlad’s behavior.

If the CEO had been sending multiple e-mails

How many do you expect? Vlad ignored the boundary multiple times and escalated to a longer reply each time.


Sorry I meant this reply, thread, whatever. This post. I’m aware the blog post was the instigating force for Vlad reaching out.


I think if a CEO repeatedly ignored my boundaries and pushed their agenda on me I would not be able to keep the same amount of distance from the subject to make such a measured blog post. I’d likely use the opportunity to point out both the bad behavior and engage with the content itself. I have a lot of respect for Lori for being able to really highlight a specific issue (harassment and ignoring boundaries) and focus only on that issue because of it’s importance. I think it’s important framing, because I could see people quite easily being distracted by the content itself, especially when it is polarizing content, or not seeing the behavior as problematic without the focus being squarely on the behavior and nothing else. It’s smart framing and I really respect Lori for being able to stick to it.


I’d have the decency to have a conversation about it

The blog post here isn’t about having a conversation about AI. It’s about the CEO of a company directly emailing someone who’s criticizing them and pushing them to get on a call with them, only to repeatedly reply and keep pushing the issue when the person won’t engage. It’s a clear violation of boundaries and is simply creepy/weird behavior. They’re explicitly avoiding addressing any of the content because they want people to recognize this post isn’t about Kagi, it’s about Vlad and his behavior.

Calling this person rude and arrogant for asserting boundaries and sharing the fact that they are being harassed feels a lot like victim blaming to me, but I can understand how someone might get defensive about a product they enjoy or the realities of the world as they apply here. But neither of those should stop us from recognizing that Vlad’s behavior is manipulative and harmful and is ignoring the boundaries that Lori has repeatedly asserted.


Leaving this higher up as a reply so it’s visible - this back and forth between you and @Tippon@lemmy.dbzer0.com was reported. While this discussion generally remained civil, this is a reminder that we should treat each other with good faith on this website as that’s the nice thing to do. This is also a reminder that sometimes it’s healthier to disengage than it is to keep talking past each other.


FWIW there’s significantly conflicting literature on whether there is any biological advantage whatsoever due to hormones if you wait enough time after starting hormones (1 year seems to be roughly the point at which advantages disappear, but there’s vanishingly little studies on this) and importantly none of these studies take a deeper look at the population in world level competition sports. It would not surprise me in the least if individuals who make it to this level do not resemble non-athletes and thus may not have normal hormone profiles or other important biomarkers for which these hormones act upon. For example, myostatin related muscle hypertrophy is associated with a few specific genes and causes abnormal (excessive) muscle growth. The prevalence of mutations which contribute to this condition are higher among world class athletes (1, 2).

The hyper-focus on the effects of testosterone and the general distribution of size between the sexes is an extremely basic viewpoint of the issue at hand. Unfortunately, however, a basic viewpoint is all you need and that viewpoint can be extremely biased or skewed in order to push a polarizing viewpoint. It’s not hard to find other metrics which support this viewpoint, such as the disparity in performance at a world level between the sexes, but even a cursory examination shows that this performance disparity has been decreasing over time and is smallest amongst sports and competitions in which both sexes get equal treatment with regards to spotting and developing athletic excellence (and the social ramifications of doing so) starting at a young age.


Yes, all AI/ML are trained by humans. We need to always be cognizant of this fact, because when asked about this, many people are more likely to consider non-human entities as less biased than human ones and frequently fail to recognize when AI entities are biased. Additionally, when fed information by a biased AI, they are likely to replicate this bias even when unassisted, suggesting that they internalize this bias.



Yes I caught that study! It’s a fantastic foray into how existing brains which have already been influenced by social pressures interact in the real world. Unfortunately, however, it isn’t explanatory and there’s a lot of methodological considerations which still need to be explored. Of note, much of what I’m going to bring up below are also brought up by Cordelia Fine in the fantastic book I mentioned above as they are considerations often overlooked when designing studies to find differences between sex or gender.

It should be noted first and foremost that most brain imaging data is not a reflection of structure itself, it’s a reflection of activity in specific areas of brains. But even that is circumspect for a number of reasons, most notably that you can reliably detect brain activity in individuals which are not alive. Ignoring some of the technical issues with detection of activity itself, in the context of activation patterns, we should expect significant difference from individual to individual in how thoughts are processed, and we likely should see patterns amongst individuals which share commonalities such as social identities. We can, for example, see reliable patterns of activity amongst world class athletes as compared to those with no training. Patterns of activity in the motor cortex based on physical requirements of one individual isn’t quite comparable to a social identity, however, and for a closer analogy we could look to language or social status to see that patterns of activation are rather malleable and can denote all kinds of social roles.

Applying that to social roles, such as gender, it is not surprising in the least that we can detect gendered differences based on how society treats us and what roles it provides and gives us access to. For example, ignoring brain imaging studies for a moment, we can detect reliable differences between the sexes when we give them math tests. However, a deeper analysis on this difference reveals that this can be easily reversed and influenced merely by priming the individuals. In fact, when we go a step further and look at brain imaging and activation patterns, we also see that there are sex differences in how the math areas are activated. Unfortunately, however, I have yet to see a design which combines those two concepts together - how do brain activation patterns differ when an individual is primed with a narrative which runs counter to that which they have internalized from society?

To take this point even further, I think it’s important to note that the study you are linking includes exactly zero transgender individuals. It also doesn’t attempt to investigate nor discover differences in gender expression or conformity to social roles. The patterns that they have detected could very easily be a reflection of internalizing the values which society instills in us based on our gender roles - there is simply no way to separate the two with this existing literature. But to take that a step even further, even if we did find that there were reproducible sex-based differences which persisted even across a representative sample of gender diverse individuals, we would need to also conduct this kind of imaging at different points in these individuals lives (especially early on and through childhood where one’s concept of gender evolves) to understand just how much is biological and how much is an influence of nurture. Even then we would still only have at best an understanding of brain activation profiles which happen to meet statistical significance, a trait shared with brain activation profiles of completely dead individuals, which calls into question the statistical validity of the precision at which the imaging technology is calibrated - we would need to redo all of that research with more precisely tuned imaging to be sure it’s an accurate reflection of brain activation… and we still would not be able to make any definitive statements about structural differences because activation is a reflection of action potentials at a specific point in time (notably all action potentials, not just the ones used in the cognitive process of the task at hand, but also those involved in living and perceiving an environment and thinking about other things) and not a true understanding of the underlying architecture which supports these action potentials (two very different circuit boards can produce the same electrical current in the same spatiotemporal area).


A few thoughts on subjects that haven’t been touched on a ton or framing which might help you understand some of the points you’ve brought up:

  • I think it’s important to note up at the top that all words are made up and definitions are merely attempts at society to agree on what a word means so that we can communicate with each other. The presence of slang, the creation of new words, and the shift of the definitions of words over time are all important factors when we talk about the deep specifics of a particular topic or idea.
  • Nearly everything in this thread is about a topic which broadly falls into the category of “loosely defined social concepts” more formally known as social constructs. Examples of loosely defined social concepts include: gender, romance, beauty, family, race, wealth, trendiness, class, art, and status.
  • Social constructs exist on a spectrum, with some having stricter definitions. For example, dictionaries exist in languages because additional structure is useful. Currency is often defined by governments to help more directly understand wealth or money so that individuals can exchange on equal terms and so that individuals can be taxed.
  • Sex and gender used to be interchangeable words in western society, back before we understood any “modern” science which delineated the two.
  • Over time sex became a legal and medical term, to describe people who were assigned female at birth generally by genital inspection of the doctor or whatever was recorded on the birth certificate
  • Gender theory, or at least the modern roots of it, emerged during women’s suffrage in the united states as a way to separate the social factors from the biological ones - to provide framing to examine social pressures, social norms, social ideas as a construct and not innately biological
  • Modern gender theory importantly separates gender identity from gender expression. Much of the discussion in this thread about gender nonconforming individuals such as tomboys being different from trans masc individuals comes down to this framing and their assigned sex at birth. Strictly speaking, having a gender identity which does not match the assigned sex at birth can be considered trans. I say “can be” because labels should never be forced on someone else
  • Labels are personal, and therefore messy, and do not always neatly match with definitions for words that are in dictionaries or generally accepted in whatever social circles. For example, a person who has a gender identity of non-binary, who presents very feminine, could still identify as a transmasc individual as an explicit recognition of their internal sense of gender or the steps of transitioning they may have taken.
  • Titles and pronouns and honorifics are individual preference and are not strictly gendered. Take, for example, the historical use of words such as lord, king, grace, duke, doctor, baron, viscount, jester, chief, lieutenant, esquire, the honorable, elder, sensei, the wise, acolyte, apprentice, etc. - these are used to signify a specific role in society or someone’s personal preference. Unsurprisingly, people can often have feelings about the use of these words
  • If you or someone you know happens to have a nickname or another name they go by in certain contexts or overall, it might help to reflect upon these names and the reason they are used. In some cases, they are forced upon people and undesirable, such as nicknames that come from hazing or bullying. In other cases they are adopted for any number of reasons, including that the person just doesn’t like their name or prefers this one. Think about how the person who uses or has these names used on them feels about their usage - this same framing can be used when it comes to pronouns or just general perception by others in a society.
  • A lot of the framing in this thread is on the gender binary, or genders created out of the sex binary (importantly, not a true binary in any science… nature is messy). Attempts to understand non-binary individuals through a binary lens will necessarily fall flat as these individuals do not see themselves as existing within the binary.
  • Gender identities which are non-binary are often based on one’s gender identity - which is also a loosely defined word. A sense of self ultimately likely comes from feelings, and just like some people feel strongly that being a mechanic is a masculine trait, people might feel that literally anything is gendered and their gender identity is composed of those feelings. Thus even things which binary folks don’t generally consider to be gendered may be an important part of one’s sense of their non-binaryness.

We’re not sure about the neurological mechanism behind the innate sense of gender as of yet, but we have been able to confirm that there are structural differences between masculine and feminine brains that are more consistent with people’s reported gender identity than their genitalia.

Actually, there’s almost no differences between masculine and feminine brains at all. The book delusions of gender by Cordelia Fine goes into this in detail, but the long story short is that just about all science on the difference between men and women is actually just bias of the researchers or poor study design. Honestly it’s a super interesting read if you’re curious about how the brains of men and women are different (spoiler alert, the difference is pretty much entirely social convention and those social pressures can be overcome in very interesting ways) and just how pervasive gender is in our society (babies start to recognize social patterns of gender before even one year of age) and just how deeply it shapes all of our lives.


Have you asked her husband how they want to be referred to? It may be a miscommunication. Other ways to approach this would be to use other words like “y’all” or “you two” or “you and your husband”. English is a pretty flexible language so you can probably find another way to avoid this, but it sounds like they are using “their” as a name and want you to never give this person pronouns and only use the name “their” as a point of reference.


Steroids in themselves are a synthetic testosterone

This is an extremely outdated understanding of steroids. While forms of testosterone are often still used for performance enhancement, the vast majority of anabolics are not testosterone at all. There are a variety of different classes of anabolics and they are often used in junction with each other. But modern doping goes much further than just that, with all kinds of new drugs such as SARMS (selective androgen receptor modulators) acting upstream to androgen receptors, drugs which affect HGH or thyroid function, erythropoeitin (EPO) and other interventions to increase blood oxygen efficiency, beta-blockers and other drugs to enhance recovery and performance through other means as well as stimulants and other drugs to increase performance in the moment.

In general I would say it is best to avoid any discussion about performance with respect to gender because any level of sports where there is money and reputation at stake is going to involve more kinds of doping than you could possibly imagine and the performance of these individuals is entirely based on how well they can hide how much they are doping and avoid testing. As a fun little anecdote, about a decade ago the Olympics changed its policy on blood tests, allowing them to hold onto blood to be retested in the future as new techniques to detect doping were developed, and there is one year in which the gold medal for a specific weightlifting event is now in the hands of the 8th or 9th place individual as all other individuals have been disqualified since.


Be the change you want to see in the world! Make text posts, or start discussions in the threads of links that inspire you 💜


just popping in because this was reported - I would suggest being supportive of others who are trying to accomplish the same kind of things you are rather than calling them “utterly delusional”


it’s not nice to cast ‘brain conditions’ in a negative light nor to accuse people who are acting in self interest of having any conditions other than not caring about their fellow human!


The entire purpose is that it doesn’t represent an entire any specific group, but the unity of the spectrum of human sexuality.

A minor point to bring up here, but being transgender is about gender, not sexuality, and I think you unintentionally just highlighted a very good reason why including the trans flag can help make that statement of inclusion and unity.


When you abstract out pieces of the puzzle, it’s easier to ignore whether all parts of the puzzle are working because you’ve eliminated the necessary interchange of information between parties involved in the process. This is a problem that we frequently run into in the medical field and even in a highly collaborative field like medicine we still screw it up all the time.

In the previous process, intelligence officers were involved in multiple steps here to validate whether someone was a target, validate information about the target, and so on. When you let a machine do it, and shift the burden from these intelligence officers to someone without the same skill set who’s only task is to review information given to them by a source which they are told is competent and their role is to click yes/no, you lose the connection between this step and the next.

The same could be said, for example, about someone who has the technical proficiency to create new records, new sheets, new displays, etc. in an electronic health record. A particular doctor might come and request a new page to make their workflow easier. Without appropriate governance in place and people who’s job is to observe the entire process, you can end up with issues where every doctor creates their own custom sheet, and now all of their patient information is siloed to each doctors workflow. Downstream processes such as the patient coming back to the same healthcare system, or the patient going to get a prescription, or the patient being sent to imaging or pathology or labs could then be compromised by this short-sighted approach.

For fields like the military which perhaps are not used to this kind of collaborative work, I can see how segmenting a workflow into individual units to increase the speed or efficiency of each step could seem like a way to make things much better, because there is no focus on the quality of what is output. This kind of misstep is extremely common in the application of AI because it often is put in where there are bottlenecks. As stated in the article-

“We [humans] cannot process so much information. It doesn’t matter how many people you have tasked to produce targets during the war — you still cannot produce enough targets per day.”

the goal here is purely to optimize for capacity, how many targets you can generate per day, rather than on a combination of both quality and capacity. You want a lot of targets? I can just spit out the name of every resident in your country in a very short period of time. The quality in this case (how likely they are to be a member of hamas) will unfortunately be very low.

The reason it’s so fucked up is that a lot of it is abstracted yet another level away from the decision makers. Ultimately it is the AI that’s making the decision, they are merely signing off on it. And they weren’t involved in signing off on the AI, so why should they question it? It’s a dangerous road - one where it becomes increasingly easy to allow mistakes to happen, except in this case the mistake can be counted as innocent lives that you killed.


They were going to kill these people whether an AI was involved or not, but it certainly makes it a lot easier to make a decision when you’re just signing off on a decision someone else made. The level of abstraction made certain choices easier. After all, if the system is known to be occasionally wrong and everyone seems to know it yet you’re still using it, is that not some kind of implicit acceptance?

One source stated that human personnel often served only as a “rubber stamp” for the machine’s decisions, adding that, normally, they would personally devote only about “20 seconds” to each target before authorizing a bombing — just to make sure the Lavender-marked target is male. This was despite knowing that the system makes what are regarded as “errors” in approximately 10 percent of cases, and is known to occasionally mark individuals who have merely a loose connection to militant groups, or no connection at all.

It also doesn’t surprise me that when you’ve demonized the opposition, it becomes a lot easier to just be okay with “casualties” which have nothing to do with your war. How many problematic fathers out there are practically disowned by their children for their shitty beliefs? Even if there were none, it still doesn’t justify killing someone at home because it’s ‘easier’

Moreover, the Israeli army systematically attacked the targeted individuals while they were in their homes — usually at night while their whole families were present — rather than during the course of military activity. According to the sources, this was because, from what they regarded as an intelligence standpoint, it was easier to locate the individuals in their private houses. Additional automated systems, including one called “Where’s Daddy?” also revealed here for the first time, were used specifically to track the targeted individuals and carry out bombings when they had entered their family’s residences.

All in all this is great investigative reporting, and it’s absolutely tragic that this kind of shit is happening in the world. This piece isn’t needed to recognize that a genocide is happening and it shouldn’t detract from the genocide in any way.

As an aside, I also help it might get people to wake up and realize we need to regulate AI more. Not that regulation will probably ever stop the military from using AI, but this kind of use should really highlight the potential dangers.


Given the unprecedented attacks on trans folks and the much higher murder rates of poc queers I think giving them space on the progress flag is more about making a statement about inclusivity and intersectionality than anything else.

Trying to include more groups like bisexual is just missing the point and people arguing that the progress flag should stay the way it is (although no one is talking about the intersex inclusive one which is an interesting statement on the erasure of intersex individuals), is more about the recognition of that statement and trying not to water down the message with a dash of design because it’s already pretty crowded.

Ultimately I do not care which flag you fly. It’s okay to say that you don’t like the design of a particular flag, but you should stop a second before commenting that and think a bit about what you could possibly accomplish with such a statement. It’s not your flag and you’re not flying it, so ultimately does it matter what you think of it’s design? Do you walk up to people with shirts you think are designed poorly and say “your shirt sucks, get a new shirt”? All you’re going to do is make them defensive and you’re pretty likely to start a fight, especially if you go off on some weird tangent about how you think the flag is bigoted in some fashion. The old adage ‘if you don’t have something nice to say, don’t say anything at all’ is pretty much designed for situations like this.


I’m leaving this comment up because I think it’s fine to point out that the rainbow stands for anyone. But I’m also leaving this reply here to let you know that you need to disengage with this thread. Insisting that a pride flag is racist is not exactly creating a welcoming environment here or being nice to people who feel included with specific flags which highlight their identity.


I cleaned up some of the comments because there was some bickering and fighting. This is a reminder for everyone to be nice on our instance.

It’s okay to not like the new flag. It’s not okay to call other users racist because they enjoy one pride flag over another.


Yes I understand, hence the preface about why caring about what definition one chooses for a word is a pointless argument. I guess I misunderstood what you were asking for with your comment about “how it plays out in the real world” and thought you were inviting the question about what damages a system ruled by money causes to the world, regardless of whether you call it capitalism or commercialism.


This is akin to the classic argument that no one has gotten communism right, and in theory it’s a good model. The reality is that humans are going to human, and some things do not work at scale because humans will inevitably do the human thing and some systems just aren’t designed well for human behavior. The insistence that people just aren’t following the definition that you’ve chosen disregards how words come to be - people create them to describe something new which was not previously defined, and they are generally created on the fly by people, not by people sitting down and writing out a specific definition before publishing and/or using it. Definitions also change, over time, to reflect how the words are being used or how the world itself has changed.

With all that being said, you did ask for sources on how capitalism plays out in the real world in response to people abundantly telling you that capitalism is harmful, so here’s a few sources you might find interesting that approach the harms or outcomes of capitalism as it has played out in the world in various countries.

1. The Impact of Advanced Capitalism on Well-being: an Evidence-Informed Model
2. Capitalism, socialism, and the physical quality of life
3. Testing hypotheses about the harm that capitalism causes to the mind and brain: a theoretical framework for neuroscience research



At no point am I arguing that it is a made up social construct. I’m just letting you know about my existence. If my existence threatens you so much that you must throw me into a box that is not you, then go ahead and do so. I’m not out here shouting at the world about how people like me exist, I’m merely replying to your attempt to erase me. There are compatible world views which don’t erase me - which many other people have pointed out here.

I’m sorry that your country is taking away your right to life saving medical care. The same thing is happening in my country. I’d rather spend my time and energy on preserving access to medical care for everyone than fighting with folks online. Best of luck, I hope things improve for you. 💜


We defederated from hexbear, please don’t post links to hexbear on our instance. If you’re a beehaw user and believe hexbear is worth reconsidering, feel free to start a conversation in support explaining why you think they should be refederated with.


This could be easily interpreted as hostile or negative, I’m removing it. If you wish to be helpful to others, I’d suggest that you never start a reply with “No it doesn’t” when someone is sharing something they could be happy about.


No one is erasing anyone

You’re literally erasing me, lol. I’m agender and trans. I did not start transitioning because of gender dysphoria. I don’t even experience gender dysphoria. If you don’t think I have the right experience to identify as trans, that’s on you my friend, but I’m not going to change my labels because you don’t think that I exist. I’m sorry if you feel that my existence jeopardizes your existence or invalidates it in any way, because there are many compatible world views in which it does not.

Ultimately it doesn’t matter either way - I only intervened here because you got reported for not being nice. So please, stop it.


The idea that a person can be socialized into being trans is directly contradictory to the idea that a trans person is born trans and that their gender identity is an unchangeable biological reality of who they are (which causes dysphoria when mismatched with their body).

You are collapsing too many ideas into one here.

There are people who through some combination of nature and nurture find themselves wanting to be treated in a way which aligns much closer to how one gender gets treated in a particular society. They may choose to transition to get this treatment despite having no dysphoria about themselves or their body. Being upset about how someone treats you is not necessarily dysphoria. There are also individuals who don’t experience their gender negatively but experience another gender more positively. They do not have dysphoria yet may choose to transition to maximize their happiness. Do not erase these individuals.

Arguing that dysphoria is central to the trans experience is a trans medicalist (truscum) viewpoint and exclusionary rhetoric isn’t nice and therefore isn’t allowed around here.


Went to a bunch of shows last weekend. Of note, Saturday night was amazing, I got to see 2 good friends DJ at one venue and then when they finished we made our way out to the forest rave to see another friend spin. A recent first date (three days prior) mentioned they didn’t get out enough so I invited them to come, and despite having never been to a rave they showed up! We ended up staying at the forest all night long. It’s the first time in years I’ve truly pulled an all nighter on purpose and not due to bad insomnia and it was wonderful and magical in all the right ways. I’m not certain whether it left me sick (I was feeling worse yesterday) or my body is just still recovering, but it was completely worth it.


Popping in because this comment got reported- a reminder to you and everyone in this thread to do your best to be nice to each other. If you’re getting heated or exhausted over this discussion it might be a good idea to step away. 💜



Could the low effort comments, indicate a criticism of the article selection itself?

If we create a culture in which those who are upset about “question headline article” enter these threads to vent their frustration through low effort comments, it’s not necessarily a criticism so much as it is a culture we’ve created. Think about what kind of content does well on Reddit or Twitter - often times people are engaging in a way because they know the community will respond in a way and they’re looking for that particular kind of validation or engagement.

We need to take a step back from time to time and think about what we’re encouraging and whether that’s helpful. If you are uninterested in interacting with “question headline article” than simply don’t. If many people share your opinion and don’t want to interact with these threads, they’ll die off and not get engagement and discussion whereas articles which don’t suffer from the same problem will have active and healthy discussions.

Not every discussion is for you, and that’s okay, but engaging with content in a way that can be easily seen as negative is generally not helpful. In fact, it’s a lot worse than “not helpful” - we talk quite a bit about how we want to have an explicitly nice space and how nice spaces evaporate quickly in the face of behavior like this. There’s a good deal of nice people who don’t like being told “law of headlines, no” and will quickly leave the space if that’s the kind of engagement they see. In order to encourage these kinds of people to stick around, we need to be careful about when we choose to criticize them.

I understand that you care a lot about whether a headline is reflective of the content and are triggered easily by headlines which are clickbait-y. But this isn’t a sentiment shared by everyone and some of the people who don’t share that sentiment are great people with lots to offer to this community. They may simply not have the time or the energy to correct what the author did, and are simply excited or happy to share an article they found interesting and aren’t as easily triggered by poor quality headlines. They might be doing so because they’re particularly interested in some insights and want to share in the joy of those insights with others. Or they may want to spur a discussion on which is elaborated upon within the article. The hyperfocus on the title and how it’s presented and leaving an ultimately negative comment which discourages discussion and can leave the poster disheartened is not helpful to creating a nice environment.


To be clear this was not meant as a criticism of you, specifically. I’m simply asking that we collectively stop this kind of behavior in general on this instance, for the reasons I outlined. If there is still a desire to criticize, that we do so in a way that is not simply stating the ‘law of headlines; no’, as that’s something that I’ve seen happen on Beehaw dozens of times.


She tried to paint ACOs as the brainchild of UHG specifically, as a means to extract wealth from an existing system. That ignores the current state of ACOs and the many which are able to reduce overall healthcare costs and in many cases reduce administrative costs. Yes, the US healthcare system is broken. Yes, it’s very simple to view this as a “band aid on a fundamentally flawed system” and yes, there’s still room for “corruption to continue”. None of that is in conflict with what I stated. I merely took issue with the framing that UHG is responsible for the creation of ACOs and VBC as that’s just factually incorrect, and it suggests the framing that ACOs are not providing any value to the system or being useful in any way- this is contradicted in the article I linked as well as plenty of other published literature by organizations which are notably not UHG.


As a community, can we please stop this behavior? This isn’t an article, but even if it was an article, rushing to be the first person to leave a “gotcha”-style message doesn’t encourage a conversation. If you have an issue with a headline, it takes a trivial amount of time to explain what, specifically about the headline could be improved or wording that is more relevant to content that the author is presenting. You can also easily start a conversation about why sensationalizing the headline is damaging to individuals. By just pointing at wikipedia, or an xkcd, or leaving a comment like this, we’re encouraging reddit and twitter style vapid interactions which consist of who can make the best joke or flame the person who posted it the soonest.

This doesn’t promote a nice environment, when every article is met with “LAW OF HEADLINES, NO”. It’s exhausting to see. In most cases the person sharing the article isn’t who wrote the article, so they aren’t actually in control of writing it. Yes, they can choose new words to put into their post, but this platform auto-populates most links with the headline from the article, and also focusing on the headline draws attention away from the article itself and any useful or fruitful discussion that can happen as a result of discussing the content, rather than the often <.05% of the content of the article that the headline constitutes.











How do you date?
Recently had a conversation with a good friend about dating, and it had me curious about how everyone on Beehaw approaches dating. Tell me a bit about how you date! Here's a few prompts/thoughts I'm curious about: * How long does it take for you to know if you're attracted to someone (sexually, romantically, emotionally, shared interests, etc)? * What do you like to do when you date and does it change depending on how many dates you've been on or how well you know the person? * Once you start dating someone, how long does it take you to understand whether you want to date the person long term or whether it's not going to work out? * Do you only date people you meet in real life or do you use dating apps? How do you approach going from stranger to dating them? * What's most important in deciding whether you want to date someone? Do they need to have an interest in activities you enjoy, shared values, emotional intelligence, a certain kind of humor, or something else? * Is there something you don't understand about dating and want to share your frustration?











How much does a creator’s worldview influence whether you use their tech or consume their media?
Watching the drama around [kagi](https://octodon.social/@walruslifestyle/111721410986331209) unfold and it has me wondering how much you take into consideration a creator's view on things like homophobia, sexism, racism, etc. when deciding to use a product. I think most of us have a bar somewhere (I would imagine very few on this website would ever consider registering on an altright platform), so where is that bar for you? What about art? Have you boycotted JKR or dropped your opinion about Picasso because they're transphobic and misogynistic respectively? Is it about the general vibe of a product or piece of media, or are you more discerning? What goes into this decision and why?