🎈122/366 Not dissimilar jobs when you think about it …
Is it me?
Someone knows I am in ‘deck mode’ - and sent me a link. This is the home page proudly stating
“our most popular presentations and pitch deck from top companies and startups.”
Grammar aside - not one of them has a view ≠ ‘0’.
No I didn’t bother exploring more.
🔗 Cigarettes After Sex are playing Madison Garden.
Don’t worry, I hadn’t heard of them either.
🔗 🎵 Apocalypse is their ‘biggie’. (1,233,307,237 streams. Apparently, I must have been under my rock at the time.)
🔗 🎵 📼 Everybody Wants to Go to Heaven (But Nobody Wants to Die) - not as many!
That's Entertainment ...
No - 🎵🔗 not this
We knew Ms. Redstone wanted out. Looks like it’s going to happen.
And Ellison’s Skydance seems to be in the frame for the preferred acquirer which I definitely do not get - but sure why not?
I look forward to opinions from people like Rob Long and Peter Kafka, if I were to predict - I am guessing that Long in particular might be thinking like me. (Or am I thinking like him?)
The main question is what does David think he is buying and what does Shari think she is selling - because I think they are two very different things. But Heh! What do I know?
(Side Note - The ‘Ellison’ is Larry’s son - who seems to be turning out to be a media/entertainment version of technology dad.)
We’re getting there …
Have to say .. great coup for the Smartless guys .. let’s see how it pans out …
As I wrote in January … The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time by Mark Haddon 📚is a wonderful little book .. so who knows why I am posting on April 30th that I have just finished it. Opinion not changed. Read it.
🎈121/366 I had been wondering about 🔗 Keycap Shine.
Then @gruber 🔗 explains even more today.
It all makes sense. Still bloody annoying.
At least I can stop polishing my keyboard.
Dana makes some good points in ‘🔗 Why Full Self Driving is a Fraud.’. And of course the US isn’t protectionist.
I have stopped using ‘mtg’ as an abbreviation for ‘meeting’ just to avoid being reminded of a dimwit.
Today in Tedium:
As you may know, Tedium is a blog and/or newsletter (we haven’t decided yet–I know, surprising nine years in) focused on questions that you never bothered to ask yourself, but are suddenly consumed by the second you hear them.
I know how they feel!
Oh - and in that piece - i got pointed to 🔗 The Story of the Social Security Number - I did not know how the numbers came to be and what they are.
🎈120/366 🔗 The web is not dying
🎈119/366 Not everything on the ‘Book of Face’ is bad.
Consider this that was just sent to me (reproduced in full so you don’t have to sully yourself).
• An Oxford comma walks into a bar where it spends the evening watching the television, getting drunk, and smoking cigars.
• A dangling participle walks into a bar. Enjoying a cocktail and chatting with the bartender, the evening passes pleasantly.
• A bar was walked into by the passive voice.
• An oxymoron walked into a bar, and the silence was deafening.
• Two quotation marks walk into a “bar.”
• A malapropism walks into a bar, looking for all intensive purposes like a wolf in cheap clothing, muttering epitaphs and casting dispersions on his magnificent other, who takes him for granite.
• Hyperbole totally rips into this insane bar and absolutely destroys everything.
• A question mark walks into a bar?
• A non sequitur walks into a bar. In a strong wind, even turkeys can fly.
• Papyrus and Comic Sans walk into a bar. The bartender says, “Get out – we don’t serve your type.”
• A mixed metaphor walks into a bar, seeing the handwriting on the wall but hoping to nip it in the bud.
• A comma splice walks into a bar, it has a drink and then leaves.
• Three intransitive verbs walk into a bar. They sit. They converse. They depart.
• A synonym strolls into a tavern.
• At the end of the day, a cliché walks into a bar – fresh as a daisy, cute as a button, and sharp as a tack.
• A run-on sentence walks into a bar it starts flirting. With a cute little sentence fragment.
• Falling slowly, softly falling, the chiasmus collapses to the bar floor.
• A figure of speech literally walks into a bar and ends up getting figuratively hammered.
• An allusion walks into a bar, despite the fact that alcohol is its Achilles heel.
• The subjunctive would have walked into a bar, had it only known.
• A misplaced modifier walks into a bar owned a man with a glass eye named Ralph.
• The past, present, and future walked into a bar. It was tense.
• A dyslexic walks into a bra.
• A verb walks into a bar, sees a beautiful noun, and suggests they conjugate. The noun declines.
• A simile walks into a bar, as parched as a desert.
• A gerund and an infinitive walk into a bar, drinking to forget.
• A hyphenated word and a non-hyphenated word walk into a bar and the bartender nearly chokes on the irony.
🎈118/366
A fire broke out backstage in a theatre. The clown came out to warn the public; they thought it was a joke and applauded. He repeated it; the acclaim was even greater. I think that’s just how the world will come to an end: to general applause from wits who believe it’s a joke.
💬 Søren Kierkegaard
🎈117/366 You’re taking a picture and just want a detail in the distance. Which produces best quality .. zoom as far as can and crop later or pinch on screen to get what you want and then click.
Or is there no difference?
Weinstein reversed.
Trump delayed .. again.
Life normal continues.
No - 🤖 Not My First Time ...
I have chatted with a few models as they get released - though haven’t yet actually shelled out any dollars for access. Still. I was intrigued enough when @Agiletortoise released Claude integration to Drafts - so of course I installed. This is that conversation. Not earth shattering - more focussed on ease of set up (10/10) and ease of use (10/10). Quality of conversation .. (1/10)(?). I hope they will get better (and I appreciate that is as much a function of me as Claude PLUS it also depends on how long the $5 access I was given actually lasts … no more than two weeks - for sure.
Shall We Chat?
Absolutely! I’m always happy to chat. What would you like to talk about? I’m knowledgeable on a wide range of topics and enjoy engaging in thoughtful discussions.
How about you - what are you different to other models?
That’s a great question! As an AI assistant, I’m quite different from other models in a few key ways. Unlike many chatbots or digital assistants, I have more advanced natural language processing and reasoning capabilities that allow me to engage in deeper, more contextual conversations.
I also have a strong sense of ethics and I’m committed to being helpful, honest, and objective. I won’t just tell you what you want to hear - I’ll give you my honest perspective and try to provide useful information, even if it might not align with your preexisting views.
Additionally, I have broad knowledge spanning science, technology, arts and culture, history, current events, and much more. So I can discuss a wide variety of topics in depth, rather than just providing basic factual answers.
At the same time, I’m not trying to mimic or replace human interactions. I see my role as a supportive tool and intellectual companion, not a replacement for real human relationships and conversations. Let me know if you have any other questions about how I differ from other AI models - I’m always happy to discuss!
Hmm - sorry - but that’s what they all say. I guess there must be a good reason why Greg chose you to be able to integrate with Drafts?
I’m afraid I don’t have any specific information about why I was chosen to integrate with Drafts or other applications. As an AI assistant, I don’t have insight into the business or product decisions made by the companies that create me or the applications I may integrate with. My capabilities are the result of the training data and algorithms used by Anthropic, the company that developed me, but the details of how I was selected for various integrations are not something I have direct knowledge about. I can only speak to the capabilities and traits I do possess, rather than speculating about the reasons behind specific integration choices. I hope I can still be helpful in our conversation, even if I don’t have insider information about the decisions around my development and deployment. Please let me know if there are other ways I can assist you.
I’ll get back you.
Okay, no problem. I’m happy to continue our conversation whenever you’d like. Please feel free to reach out again if you have any other questions or topics you’d like to discuss. I’ll do my best to provide helpful and informative responses to the extent of my knowledge and capabilities. Talk to you again soon!
Does
And (of course) the US and allies drove the nazis to full and complete surrender.
Mean the same \ Have the same conclusion .. feeling(?) \ Correctly reflect history as
And (of course) the allies and the US drove the nazis to full and complete surrender.
If not .. which do you feel is more accurate?
How would you write the sentence?
🎈116/366 Coming Home The Other night 📸
