cuteroid

it's definitely not telling their spouse, don't worry, not out of any dishonor. things turn around in such a way that (depending on the gender of the one telling) if you're a woman your name turns into the whore trying to break them up, and if you are a man into the dishonorable bastard who "slandered an honorable woman's honor." with some of the people being cheated on there's a peculiar kind of foolishness, not stupidity, they believe so much that their partner wouldn't do it that without seeing it firsthand or having concrete evidence, they won't let a speck of dust settle on them.

according to idiots, people are divided into more than eight categories, chief among them race, sex, nationality, age, status, color, religion, and language. but the matter isn't this complicated. people are divided into only two: good people and bad people.

(see: albert einstein)

it's already known that from spacex to nvidia, from google to openai, it's all a circular ponzi scheme. the most important factor determining whether or not all that speculative capital investment will pay off is the productivity trend of the flagship model. but that's a long-term prediction. by the time that horizon arrives, you've taken the company public, collected money from the public, and inflated the share price as much as you want based on public expectation rather than experts. as long as the derivative of productivity sits at a certain slope.

anthropic is already used to doom-marketing along the lines of "now this model is gonna mess everyone up, don't forget to ask for it at your dealers tomorrow." the well-known ipo is at the door too, and this has time-bombed reasons like the market collapsing once trump turns into a lame duck. but fable was probably measured at a performance that's a harbinger of the structural model plateau, meaning that the trillion dollars of capital buried into it won't turn over quite that many trillions, and a receiver had to be appointed to public perception.

they had already started giving away some of the problems by changing their pricing and mechanisms. then before fable came out, they prepped the ground in advance by going on and on about oh no, cybersecurity, some object or other is approaching. that way, when the model was released with such a badly excessive amount of guardrails that it was unusable, nobody would get suspicious. i'm sure they got some marginal improvement out of all the user data and such, but the rest of the model's visible productivity, in my opinion, mostly amounts to flooring the engine right at release time, internalizing the market's harness stubbornness into their own harnesses. (making it burn tokens like an ox with a supervisor prompt along the lines of "try ten times until you find it, don't ask the user" instead of saying "i couldn't find this, what should i do" isn't a skill, but it isn't productivity either. people who use openclaw and the like will get what i mean.)

if the amount of profitable work that can be done per unit token or dollar or time isn't rising as fast as the capital investment being made, those shares are going to fall there. normally this is a healthy thing. but if what you've got on hand is bloat and circular pumping, then this truth coming to light has very unpleasant consequences. especially when you consider that the american economy has nothing else whatsoever that promises any hope of growth. and this national security matter in question is exactly that.

this is not investment advice, but it's the method elon musk has come up with to nibble away at the money of completely ordinary investors, people who invest in indexes, and the money in pension funds.

the s&p made the right call by not adding it to the index. yes, with this rush, it'll bring money to those looking for action who'll hit and run in a day or two, but the money of most individual investors and people with investments in pension funds is going to get nibbled away too.

the company is already going public at twice the valuation it should be, it has never seen a profit and is constantly posting losses, and it's impossible for it to see a profit anytime soon.

but elon knows where he'll find the money, and spacex investors, with their shares in a firm that has never seen a profit since the market opening, will fleece the ordinary investor like always.

even while wrestling with hunger, disasters, and death, somebody off in a corner was carving stone, raising a temple, sculpting a statue, smearing paint on a wall. maybe what makes us human began right here. because from that moment on, we stopped being just a creature trying to stay alive and turned into a being that wanted to make sense of what it saw and leave a trace behind.

take the people who chased mammoths, for instance, we don't know their trace or trail, but we can still come across what that first homo sapiens guy drew when he sketched a bison on a cave wall with charcoal.

maybe that's exactly why art can never be a luxury. today, in the middle of economic crises, wars, and the rush of daily life, there are still people writing novels, shooting films, composing songs, putting paint to canvas. there isn't as big a difference as you'd think between the person who left the print of their hand on a cave wall and the sculptor whose back is bent from carving marble, the master craftsman working a pattern into a dome, and today's artist. despite all the hardships, what's eating at all of them is really the same thing: "if i'm going to vanish one day, how will i tell anyone that i lived here?"

"advice given to someone in front of others is not advice, it is an insult."

kintsugi is a japanese art form based on the idea that when something breaks, it can be repaired in a way that makes it even more beautiful and valuable than it was before. the cracks and fractures are filled with gold, turning the damage into a visible part of the object’s history rather than something to hide. instead of pretending the object was never broken, kintsugi highlights the break and honors it as part of the story. kintsugi

the u.s. calls itself a democracy, but in practice it’s more like a system that just looks like one on paper.

first off, the u.s. is not a true multi-party system. it’s structured to push everything into two poles: democrats and republicans. technically there are other parties, like the green party, libertarians, and a few others, but the system is designed so they can’t really compete.

why? because the u.s. uses a “winner-takes-all” voting system. whoever gets the most votes in a state wins all the representation, and everyone else gets nothing. so if a candidate gets 49% of the vote, they get zero representation. smaller parties with 2 or 3% of the vote get completely shut out. over time, voters learn that voting for anyone besides the two big parties is basically wasting their vote. so even if someone likes what the green party stands for, they’ll think “if i vote green, it’ll only help republicans win.” tactical voting becomes the norm: “i can’t pick what i really want, but at least i can try to block what i really don’t want.” this is why third parties get called “spoilers.”

then there’s money. running for office in the u.s. costs millions. the big parties can easily tap into corporate money. the media focuses only on the two big parties, and third parties barely get heard. parties that aren’t seen as having a shot get treated like a joke.

the most blatant example of the system’s flaws is the electoral college. americans don’t elect their president by popular vote. they vote for electors, and those electors decide. with 538 total electors, a candidate needs 270 to win. this system makes it possible for someone to lose the popular vote by millions and still become president. it’s happened more than once: in 2000, al gore got about 540,000 more votes than bush and still lost. in 2016, hillary clinton got around 3 million more votes than trump and still lost. so “one person, one vote” isn’t really a thing here. the system also forces candidates to only campaign in swing states. voters in places like california or texas basically get ignored.

now add lobbying. the 2010 citizens united supreme court ruling made things even worse. it said that spending money on elections is a form of free speech. so now corporations, unions, and the super-rich can pour unlimited money into “super pacs” that run ads and shape public opinion. politicians can’t really win without tapping into this money. and after the election, these donors have huge influence on what laws get passed. ordinary people have little voice compared to big donors.

so how do americans still think they live in a democracy? because at this point “democracy” is more of a brand than a real system. like “freedom” or “justice” or “peacekeeping.” it’s a label people have been taught to be proud of since childhood. public schools teach that the u.s. system is unique and the freest in the world. the media repeats this constantly: “look at china, look at russia.” they never say “look at switzerland or norway.” so americans grow up believing “sure, our system has flaws, but it’s still the best.”

for most people here, democracy means: do we have elections? yes. can i vote? yes. can i criticize the government? usually, yes. so that must mean it’s a democracy. but things like fair representation, media monopolies, and the influence of money barely register for most people. criticizing the system feels like criticizing america itself, and people get defensive. it’s less about what democracy actually is and more about what it symbolizes. for many americans, democracy isn’t a functioning system, it’s part of their national identity.

the mandalorian is basically star wars meets the wild west — but with cooler helmets. it follows din djarin, a badass bounty hunter with a strict code, as he roams the galaxy taking odd jobs and trying to keep his adorable sidekick, grogu (a.k.a. baby yoda), safe from shady villains and imperial leftovers. think space cowboys, epic shootouts, and unexpected heartwarming moments — all while rocking the best armor in the galaxy.

elon musk's family background is rooted in dutch and english ancestry, and his grandfather was reportedly a nazi fanatic who even served in a nazi-supporting party in canada. later, after moving to south africa, he aligned himself with pro-apartheid views. musk's father apparently followed the same path: he was wealthy enough to own an emerald mine but is also infamous for having a child with a daughter he adopted when she was only four—an act many consider beyond appalling.

it's not exactly surprising that someone from such a family might have difficulty developing into a well-adjusted individual. he's practically the living embodiment of the phrase "not even a parent could love him." neither his parents nor his own children seem to want much to do with him—no small statement for someone with at least a dozen known kids. it's a pitiful situation, really.

to treat a person who can't even show genuine love to his own daughter like some kind of revolutionary leader borders on willful ignorance. he's driven by power, money, and approval, and shows no trace of moral values in the process. if you're still under the impression that he's anything but self-serving, it might be time to take a harder look at his actions.

here are a couple of examples of how aristotle's rhetoric has been used in real life and history:

in a political campaign: a political candidate might use aristotle's rhetoric to win over voters. for example, they might establish their credibility by highlighting their experience and qualifications, appeal to the emotions of voters by discussing issues that are important to them, and present a logical argument by outlining their policies and addressing potential concerns.

in a courtroom: lawyers often use aristotle's rhetoric to persuade a jury or judge. they might establish their credibility by discussing their education and experience, appeal to the emotions of the jury by sharing stories about the impact of the case on the plaintiffs or defendants, and present a logical argument by using evidence and legal precedent to support their position.

in a business presentation: a business person might use aristotle's rhetoric to persuade a potential investor or client. they might establish their credibility by discussing their experience in the industry, appeal to the emotions of the audience by highlighting the benefits of their product or service, and present a logical argument by discussing the financial projections and potential return on investment.

overall, aristotle's rhetoric can be used in a variety of contexts where effective communication is important. it can help speakers to persuade their audience by establishing their credibility, appealing to their emotions, and presenting a logical argument.

auvers-sur-oise is a commune in the northern suburbs of paris, france. located in the val-d'oise department, auvers-sur-oise is known for its picturesque setting and its association with the impressionist movement. the town was the subject of many paintings by artists such as vincent van gogh, who lived and worked in auvers-sur-oise for the last few months of his life. today, the town is a popular destination for art lovers, and it is home to the maison de vincent van gogh, a museum dedicated to the artist's life and work. auvers-sur-oise is easily accessible from paris by train, and it offers a peaceful escape from the hustle and bustle of the city.

the walt disney company is one of the largest and most successful entertainment companies in the world. founded by walt disney and roy o. disney in 1923, the company has grown to include a wide range of businesses, including film and television production, theme parks, and consumer products. some of the most well-known disney characters, such as mickey mouse and snow white, were created during the company's early years, and they have become beloved by generations of children and adults around the world. in addition to its iconic characters, disney is known for its commitment to innovation and storytelling, and it continues to be a leader in the entertainment industry.

charles iii was the king of spain from 1759 to 1788. he was the fifth son of philip v of spain and elisabeth farnese, and he is known for modernizing the spanish economy and implementing important reforms during his reign. charles iii is also remembered for his support of the arts and sciences, and he is credited with establishing the first spanish observatory and botanical garden. he was succeeded by his son, charles iv, who continued many of his father's reforms.

it is being used by outdoor cats as self-heating beds. image

did the cats affect the performance?