Exactly this... when I was a kid it was all movie trailers, now they play the same fucking ads I get on youtube.

Right, because there was always such a weak connection between Twitter and "social media".

It's a patently boneheaded branding decision, there's no way to spin it as even potentially smart.

You realize you're the one repeating demonstrably false statements?

For real, I thought it was just me but I find the unfinished g's really distracting, even though I understand it's a stylistic choice my brain keeps thinking it's being rendered funky

>After all, do you really expect to cover, for instance, “word salad”?

This is covered further down in the article where it's pointed out that one of the Merriam-Webster definitions is

>"A usually incongruous mixture : HODGEPODGE"

The author points out that Merriam-Webster actually has a looser definition of salad than they do, because the article is only considering edible things to count.

Also, I disagree - I don't think "fruit salad", or "chicken salad", or "egg salad" etc are "figurative" (not sure what you even mean by that), I would absolutely consider them legitimate salads.

Not saying I agree with the rest of the claims, but it is funny to think of a bowl of skittles as being a salad, and it's always a mindfuck to think about just how impossible it is to categorize every little thing into a neat little box.

> Also, I disagree - I don't think "fruit salad", or "chicken salad", or "egg salad" etc are "figurative" (not sure what you even mean by that), I would absolutely consider them legitimate salads.

I mean "figurative" in the typical sense: describing a thing using a word for a different thing in order to suggest a similarity between the two things. A fruit salad is fruit arranged similarly to how vegetables are arranged in a salad. A fruit pizza is a dish with a crust that looks similar to a pizza crust, topped with frosting and fruit in a way that evokes how pizza is topped with sauce, cheese, etc.

The difference here is, the fruit pizza couldn't possibly be a pizza, because it's a salad :) /j

It's a transparently disrespectful move. Apologizing for disrespectful behaviour is pretty normal.

Says it's in one HTML file... well, where? Why post a video if you could just link to it? I don't see a link to it anywhere, and I'm not watching a youtube video to look at an HTML file.

There is a link in the video description.

You have to pay for the demo...

Ah yes, let me just whip out my wallet real quick and pay for a demo of an HTML file. I'll _definitely_ be doing that.

To be fair it's a great way to accept donations.

Maybe we have a different definition of "donation", but it requires you to pay at least $2.50 to access it. Sounds like a purchase, not a donation. And for a demo of an HTML document.

It's not a donation if they're actually selling a file.

IMO human-verifying will always be a must, no matter how good the LLMs get. If I'm shipping code that I don't understand and it ends up having major problems, I'm still the one who's responsible for it, not the LLM.

You could ship code without understanding it, it just needs to be treated as throwaway, unreliable and potentially malicious. This is OK for some tasks, e.g. best-effort scraping of a frequently updated website that's actively hostile to automation

At what point would it be worth it for clubs to just decouple from FIFA and start a new international federation without all the bullshit? I know as long as there's massive amounts of money involved corruption is bound to seep in, but the optimist in me wants to believe a new federation could be structured to be slightly more resistant to it.

That's the problem. You can create a new thing with the initial leadership that is well intended, but say 250 years later some one less well intended gets voted in charge. So something smaller like FIFA and IOC would be much more susceptible as the voting base is much smaller and easier to corrupt.

I see what you did there with the 250 years. I just assume you were not talking about football anymore.

> thing with the initial leadership that is well intended, but say 250 years later some one less well intended gets voted in charge

The fundamental problem with FIFA is the revenue body is also the sport’s standards and adjudication body. Split those functions, with one selling tickets and divvying up spoils, while a separate committee polices the sport, and you put aside a lot of the corruption issues unique to FIFA.

A lot of people would be behind this, but it would likely just cause a massive schism. The question to be answered is if the world is large enough for multiple global football organizations, because it's likely many of the regional ones will stay with FIFA for the near to medium-term.

What would be better is if they can work together to root out the corruption, but as long as profitability is worshiped as openly as it is, it will tough to fight since money is so concentrated and it's now a kind of self-sustaining entity.

You only need UEFA and CONMEBOL (South America) to agree with each other. Those two confederations include every FIFA World Cup winner so far. If they make their own organization and their own world cup, that's it for FIFA

Other confederations are important for FIFA-internal politics (especially the African votes, Infantino's biggest group of supporters), but for fans and players the quality of the clubs matters far more. And that is geographically clustered

South America’s federation has been supporting Infantno and supported the plan.

But not the nations. At least the Brazilian association is against the plan and arguably the most important.

On the internet, everything is arguable.

On the field, Brazil doesn’t appear to be most important these days.

It's because you probably don't know much about football (soccer?). The Brazilian football clubs dominate South America.

Brazil has 9 Copa America titles.

Fewer than Argentina.

Fewer than Uruguay.

And yes, I acknowledge your cherry-picking was Libradores.

Brazil has the richest league in South America and thus like England its teams can buy better players.

National clubs? They can and UEFA considered it but the problem is always buy-in.

FIFA has a billions in revenue and reserves. Many of the supranational areas are developing and need that income support, at least it looks like outreach, even if it's bribery-shaped. Even in developed nations the people who make the decisions have long tenures and like paid lunches and free tickets. Tough one to crack.

Corruption has been part of the game since forever. One of the most infamous world cups was in Argentina during a brutal dictatorship. The one who threw people out of airplanes and took babies from pregnant women.

Argentina had its own version of Pinochet?

UEFA is an international federation.

UEFA is upset about FIFA’s finances because it cuts into UEFA’s finances.

I mean UEFA hasn’t put forward ethically superior plans to finance Futbol development in the poorest parts of Africa, remote Oceania, or tiny Caribean islands.

Indeed, in recent years UEFA has expanded UEFA competitive fixtures to increase revenues via 1. The Nations League, 2. The UEFA Conference League, and 3. The League Phase format of the Champions League and UEFA League.

Each of these is at the expense of countries outside of Europe via reduced opportunities for international friendlies witheuropean clubs, increased club calendars and associated injuries (player injuries have a disproportionate effect on countries with shallower talent pools).

All the UEFA complaints about the expanded world cup (and club world cup) were regarding actions UEFA has pursued in recent years…including the money grab.

If you have to bet, bet its the money not the principle of it.

I could see unregulated platforms blowing up, which would directly expose minors to far worse.

Like imagine if they all flock to 4chan, or similar.

4chan doesn’t rely on likes or upvotes, and posts are ostensibly "anonymous" (not attached to a persistent identity). Instead, users earn their feel-good chemicals by the amount of attention they can generate, positive or negative, as measured in number of replies or impact on board culture. Threads themselves are kept alive based on how often they receive a reply relative to their peers, with each board having a set capacity for active threads; the least popular threads are quickly pruned out of existence.

This system encourages gamifying replies by creating content that elicits strong fear, anger, or excitement responses, or opinions or media so shocking that it’s impossible not to interact with them. Combined with a lax free-speech policy, you get a website that reinforces the nastiest, most unsanitized content, often far-removed from reality, which can exacerbate mental illness or depression among vulnerable populations.

While other social media platforms also encourage their creators to exploit fear, anger, or excitement, leaning too heavily on emotionality without being acceptable to your audience can cause your post to be buried or underperform. Emotional engagement is only one factor in success, alongside the like-to-dislike ratio, watch time, creator reputation, and palatability to advertisers. If you post, e.g., an emotionally provocative YouTube video that completely dismantles your audience’s preexisting conception of you (a leftist posting a right-wing video), the video will likely be dislike-bombed and thus unable to climb very far in the algorithm, while your reputation will be tarnished among your hardcore fans. Even on a more pseudo-anonymous platform like Reddit, going too far against the grain of a subreddit will get your post downvoted and hidden from anyone not sorting by new, and probably deleted by the mods.

4chan doesn’t have these issues. Even if you are outside the Overton window of a specific board, as long as the post has enough substance to fuel outrage (there is a difference between cheap outrage and more visceral, long-lasting outrage that can only be created by someone intimately familiar with the subject), your post can still be successful, although you will be bombarded with racial slurs and death threats. It’s ragebait in its purest form.

Disclaimer: I have never posted on 4chan and these are just my observations from lurking.