You know, you’re getting downvoted for this, and I get why, but I also think you should’ve been offered a suggestion: RSS feeds. They let you get your news from good, reliable sources that aren’t The Daily Beast talking about “Elon Musk drops SHOCKING new post on X (did he shit his pants??)” Unironically, it’s the best way to keep up with the news bar none. I can even give you personalized suggestions if you’d like.

Your problem is real. Your problem is not your fault. Your solution is understandable. I just think it’s misguided.

I think part of that has been actual elevated standards on Wikipedia with a more robust culture for things like citations, but probably more importantly, it’s readers already being expected to understand that Wikipedia isn’t an inherently credible source and needs checking if you actually care.

Of course part of it now too, as you imply, is generative AI making it look more rigorous by comparison and lowering people’s standards.

somewhat supportive

Don’t know who told you that. Its usage is prohibited outside of basic copy–editing and translation, the latter of which has its own guidelines you must act within.

The Wikimedia Foundation has very little to do with what goes on on the English Wikipedia. It hosts the infrastructure, puts some legal policies in place, and really from there, the community-elected administrators (who are themselves active contributors) are the ones who handle enforcement, and the rules are discussed by the community.

Even the administrators don’t exercise all that much power. In ten years, I think I’ve seen the office have to step in exactly one time – for a possible libel issue when even the administrators couldn’t agree with each other.

Only an AI would care enough about their audience to add typographical variety to aid in comprehension. So why do you have those paragraph breaks, you fucking BOT??

“GPTs as a technology have real, practical, beneficial uses for large-scale data analysis; we should prune our usage back to those.”

“Wow, so you think SLAVERY is OKAY and we should DO SLAVERY??”

In two years on this utterly grassless threadiverse I don’t think I’ve said this yet:

Touch grass.

who specializes in body language

Yeah, but can we ask a phrenologist for a second opinion?

Silver, when they talk about me in the future, make sure my name is something cool, like “Jessica Grimdark”.

Or Blaze?

Yes! The coolest name in the world!

Note the weird artifact in front of their left shoulder.

Edit: Note also how fucking unnaturally buoyant the floatation device is.

Specifically, look at her left eye.

I work on PCSX2 in a small capacity. They’re not my cup of tea, and I feel like they actively hamper a first or second or possibly even third playthrough. However, I’ve had some modest enjoyment adding them to games I beat 50 times over in the PS2’s heyday just to have a better sense of permanence, to see if I’m good enough for the harder-ish challenges of dedicated fans, and to (ideally) see cute puns/references in the achievement names.

I think achievements are actively bad for a first playthrough and only, in that capacity, serve to turn games into a checklist simulator that cynically exploits dopamine pathways. But I also won’t nag the people who do use them for first playthroughs, even though I think they’d holistically enjoy them more without.

On the whole, RetroAchievements clearly breathe new life into games for a ton of people, and I’ve got no problem with that.

Also, the people who develop the RA infrastructure are really cool from what I’ve heard and seen.

More like Sonyphus.

Jesus fuckin’ christ, Christofuh, get off the drugs and quit castin’ aspersions! Gabagool.

Reasonable to assume (given this decision to run takes place over like two seconds) that Indy suspects that the boulder could block him in if he ducks under it (spoiler: it would).

Edit: Full scene for anyone who forgot exactly how the sequence plays out. This was a 100% reasonable move by Indy.

deleted by creator

What they weren’t telling you is that it’s one study from the 1990s in rats, then in another comment they just throw in “granted it’s in rats” like that doesn’t make all the difference in the world.

Yes, because it’s a single study on rats from the 1990s. When we’re talking about the health effects in humans and you show up talking about a “direct link to cancer”, any reasonable reader – because again, “humans aren’t rats” – would believe you’re talking about a direct link to cancer in humans.

“Alcohol has been directly linked to literally being dissolved alive.”

“Really?”

“Well in bacteria, yes.”

You know, generally it’s implied you mean “in humans” when we’re talking about… the health effects in humans.

“People aren’t rats”, to quote a “no-fucking-shit” passage from the article that I hope is obvious to you too.

They’re wrong. Please see my comment. There are potential other problems with dyes (the main one that’s more concerning is risk of ADHD), but their statement about cancer is horseshit – not because it’s impossible they cause cancer but because “directly linked and have been for years” is not supported by science in 2026.

Good for you for looking out for your kid. ❤️