Fedegenerate

This always trips me up. Would the correct way of writing: a cube 256mm to an edge

256³mm³? That feels inelegant.

Do the math myself so 1.67*10⁶mm³? Which seems like I’m asking the reader to simplify what I complicated.

Or 256mm³? That seems true to speech it’s a 256mm cube…

Sing me the doom song while I drive us to Whitby.

Blood over Bright Haven. A book that, among other things, is about discovering how to be a good ally.

It’s the machine that goes “BING”

You don’t understand, I need all the help I can get!!!

Which is quite literally everything. At the very, very, least goods and services are distributed via oil power somewhere in the chain.

Wait till you learn about Carcassonne. A town so chaotically laid out it has a board game.

I don’t think Spec ops is spoilers to reveal you’re a bad guy, not in 2026: you play the US, in the Gulf. You play the US doing US imperialism, it doesn’t hide that from you. It’s just later in the game it confronts you with what that really means.

Braid absolutely, but it’s 17yo at this point, any reasonable spoiler policy* has worn off. Meets the criteria, gets you all empathetic for the little shit, Tim, then makes you question it all. I think a first play through is impactful even knowing he’s a villain… It’s not that he’s a villain that is cool, it’s how you find out he’s a villain.

*Except for Outer Wilds the spoiler policy on that is eternal.

Ok, but I fail to see the reasoning behind your comment then.

Agree or not whether there’s an ethical way to consume HP, you believe your opinion on the matter is not morally or ethically authoritative.

I don’t think anyone would have suggested otherwise… There isn’t a comment here saying “but what does minorkeys think”.

Ok. You believe your opinion isn’t ethically or morally authoritive, but it could still have merit.

Dungeon Keeper.

Destroy all humans.

Spec ops the line.

Braid.

Manhunt.

Fixed, thanks for the correction. Ironic “We’re wrong all the time” in a comment containing a factual error.

No worries, I meant it in a “Hurr Durr, even the dumb AI gets it, and it doesn’t even know Kirk is dead”, which was perhaps ablest of me.

Going forwards I don’t really know what I want to do about it. I don’t think I’ll stop making layered satirical comments, but posting the explanation along side feels like it’s taking the “bite” away from the satire.

Posting the explanation, without the snark, when someone obviously doesn’t “get it” is probably best. The person asking for a source for Charlie Kirk’s medical exam obviously “didn’t get it”. I should probably have posted the AI summary there to avoid most of the nonsense that followed.

The person who thought I posted an article about George Floyd obviously wasn’t going to respect my time by considering anything I wrote. The person who said I used AI to explain the joke to myself, also wasn’t going to respect my time by reading anything I wrote, there was no avoiding their nonsense. They deserved all the snark they got.

I guess not. I don’t know if that’s because the training data is old. Or, there’s been so much satire around public figures dying that it was more likely article was satire than not. I didn’t inform Gemini it was a Guardian article, perhaps it would have changed response given that, thinking Guardian doesn’t post satire that often.

It got a lot wrong, LLMs aren’t trained to be factually accurate though. They’re trained on us, and we’re wrong all the time.

Searxing is great. Incredibly customisable, and the search is powerful if you want it to be. Using tags to limit which query goes to which engine is something I should utilise more. !WP only going to Wikipedia, or !translate only going to selected translate engines.

FragileFraggle getting the recognition she deserves.

I don’t believe anyone here was saying there was.

You are correct though. It was obvious some conservatives wanted the execution, they just watched, to not be labeled an execution. “Self inflicted overdose” was a convenient excuse for them, so they ran with it.

The left has long lost any authority over defining the ethics and morals of society, as far as I’m concerned.

+

I am a lefty though so …figure that out

=

You have long lost any authority over defining the ethics and morals of society, as far you are concerned. Figured it out.

I used AI to explain my own joke to myself? I don’t understand your comment.

Like the person I asked to re-read the initial paragraph of the article I linked, explaining the comment I made. I’ll ask you to re-read the initial sentence of the comment I made explaining the joke I made.

I used AI to explain my joke to someone who couldn’t figure out the article about Charlie Kirk, was about Charlie Kirk, even when the initial picture is Charlie Kirk, and the initial sentence names Charlie Kirk.

I’m done with Lemmy for the day until you peeps start to read what you’re replying to.

Ok, just to check I’m not being too obcure I put my initial comment into Gemini.I asked it to explain the comment in the context of a post about the bullet that killed Charlie Kirk. It doesn’t know Kirk is dead, it did get the joke though. Now to the article, would you like to read the initial paragraph again please… Perhaps copy it into your next comment. Who’s the first picture in the article of?

Prompt:

Explain this comment left under an article about the bullet that killed Charlie Kirk:

“I thought Charlie’s medical found lethal doses of fentanyl in his system.”

Gemini:

To understand that comment, you have to look at it through the lens of internet subcultures and political satire. It is a layered reference to the 2020 death of George Floyd and the subsequent memes that emerged from right-wing and left-wing online spaces. Here is the breakdown of why that comment was made:

1. The “Lethal Dose” Trope The specific phrasing—“lethal doses of fentanyl in his system”—is a direct callback to the toxicology report of George Floyd. Following his death, many conservative commentators and social media users argued that Floyd did not die from police restraint, but rather from a drug overdose. By using this exact line in a comment about Charlie Kirk (a prominent conservative figure), the commenter is engaging in “copy-pasta” satire. They are taking a common right-wing talking point and “copy-pasting” it onto a situation involving a conservative to point out what they see as an absurdity or a double standard.
2. The Context of the “Bullet” Article If the article mentioned a “bullet that killed Charlie Kirk,” it is likely referring to a viral piece of misinformation or a specific satirical news story. Charlie Kirk is alive; therefore, any article claiming he was killed by a bullet is either: Satire: (e.g., The Onion or The Babylon Bee style content). Misinformation: A hoax designed to trigger a reaction.
3. The Irony of the Comment The commenter isn’t actually confused about Kirk’s medical records. Instead, they are using dark irony. The Logic: If a conservative argument suggests that a victim of violence actually died of a drug overdose to absolve the shooter/police, the commenter “flips the script” by suggesting that even if Kirk were shot, his “true” cause of death must have been fentanyl. Summary of Intent Mockery: To mock the arguments used in high-profile police brutality cases. Shitposting: To derail a serious or sensationalist headline with a well-known political meme. Parody: To act as a “mirror,” showing how certain political rhetoric sounds when applied to its own side. In short, it’s a cynical joke aimed at the way political deaths are litigated in the “court of public opinion.”

I told you the source: Charlie Kirk’s medical examiner.