Alternately, a buggalo ranch, named the Wong place.

While my algorithm feed is still pretty clean, I only use it to find new people to subscribe to if I’m not getting enough good videos to satisfy the time I want to spend. Otherwise I do the new videos on my subscriber feed first, and only go to the rest if I want to after.

But alternate options are fine too, just, youtube can still be made to work for you if you control it, rather than letting it feed you.

Ok, so it’d be like if a wikipedia page about jesus said he was “our lord and saviour” instead of saying “some people consider him to be their lord and saviour”. A page for “Lord and saviour” as a phrase might still list jesus as one possible link.

Basically taking a first person position on it, instead of a third person position. Like grokipedia is writing from first person perspective that Hitler is the fuhrer, which when you consider that it is a significant departure from the wikipedia article, as only 0.01% of the content of grokipedia is, suggests it’s a hand crafted article written by someone that would refer to hitler personally as the leader, and not as someone some people used to call “the leader”.

There is a reason it was edited immediately as soon as people noticed, due to how bad it looked once pointed out.

Only his followers actually use(d) that title for him, everyone else when using that word about him, would say it’s the title his followers call(ed) him. Like how wikipedia is using it. Grok is just using it as his title, like a follower would.

You can think of it kind of like “dear leader” in north korea. Anyone calling him that outside of north korea is at least doing it sarcastically or using air quotes. This would be like if the news called him that with a sincere reverent tone.

To be fair, the wikipedia article says he was called that by the people that followed him. It never calls him that itself.

The grokipedia article, just calls him that.

A subtle, but very important, distinction.

Not to mention the other important part where grok buries any mention of the holocaust 13000 words in, where as it’s in the intro on wikipedia.

Keep in mind, by default, grokipedia started with a copy of what wikipedia said, so any changes are what was hand-edited on purpose.

The changes speak to what they wanted it to say and do differently.

I suppose it depends on perspective, but I feel like if John Romero says it was made with mouse controls intended as the default, he’s probably right, as he would be one of the few people to know what they had in mind when making it.

Does she have a more comfortable passive social life? Like online friends or something parasocial at least? She may very much enjoy the alone times she gets as you are enjoying your social times. Most introverts only need one or two close friends and have trouble enjoying anything more. Too many, and you don’t end up getting enough alone time, or feel like you have to push for it, and we tend not to like having to push for things.

But as with pretty much all relationship problems, find a way to talk to her about it. She’s the only one that can tell you what she wants or how she feels.

“Rock and Balloon” relationships are actually pretty common. You both end up feeling like you are influencing the other ones behaviour more than they would want. But often times you are both actually seeking that influence. And it will feel like you are pulling them against their nature all the time, but if you talk about it, you may find that you are both comfortable with the arangement. Or not… if through conversation you find that one is pulling too hard, that can be adjusted too.

Yeah, that’s fine, a bit outside the metaphor as there is no analog.

Basically just that socially enforced boundaries are a thing even in public spaces.

But we are allowed, and encouraged to read it, just not post. It is public.

I’m not sure the specific name of it. Something like “women only” but I’m not finding it in search. I browse lemmy by all, so it comes up every now and then for me.

We are fully allowed to read it, just don’t post. Reading it is very insightful.

Lets say you go to a public building and in that public building there is a room marked women only, lets say in that room are some toilets, would you go in that room? Since it’s a public space in the same building as all the other public space, the only difference is that portion of the space is understood to be only for women, or those that identify as women.

You may stumble in accidentally, and you will be gently corrected, but if you keep stumbling in, it’s gonna start to seem weird, and the corrections will get less gentle.

Umm, does he not realise we would also want those pedophiles in jail too?

Like sure ‘every pedophile’ is better, but half is a good start, we’ll get the rest in due time. Stuff is constantly leaking.

Is that not what the other commenters here are arguing? Cuz even when I ask them if that’s what they are saying they keep answering like it is what they are saying, that I must not have gone to an american school. No, I didn’t go to an american school, is it really that bad there? Like Canada is right next to the states, it can’t be that much worse just crossing one border.

I don’t get what you are saying? The kids didn’t do anything wrong? Or they shouldn’t also be in trouble? I don’t get why everyone is saying the kids should be allowed to steal?

Yes I have been to high school, no kids didn’t steal food from the teachers in my high school. But even if they did, they would have been wrong to do so…

Is it really a common thing nowadays for kids to steal from teachers? And not considered wrong when they do?

I really thought the reason it didn’t mention the trouble the kids got in was just cuz including underage children in news articles has to be so redacted as to essentially be pointless unless they are the main focus of the article. Not that they are considered to have not done anything wrong nowadays.

I’m not arguing that she wasn’t wrong, I state multiple times that she was wrong. He’s arguing the kids aren’t wrong at all. I maintain the kids also did something wrong.

So, it’s your opinion that the kids did nothing wrong by stealing and eating the teachers food? They aren’t even partly responsible?

So the parents get their kids home and they are ok with the kids stealing the teachers food, the teacher shouldn’t have had food in the classroom since kids are allowed to just steal whatever they want.

Eating a parents food is a little more understandable, though still not something a kid should do without permission. Eating a teachers food, is down right actual stealing. It is different even if the teacher is supposed to act like a parent, though I haven’t heard of that being the case, if anything teachers are restricted from acting like parents to the children.

They may have some legal burden, but it doesn’t mean it should be treated exactly as if they are the parents in every situation.

But I did say it was fair that the teacher got in trouble, just thought it odd initially that it doesn’t mention the kids repercussions, til I thought about the hurdles involved in writing that bit of the article and assumed they just didn’t bother.

While I definitely get that she shouldn’t have left them sitting out, is it not the fault of the kids randomly eating other peoples food without permission that the food ended up being much more “not for them” than it already would have been?

Well, I suppose just cuz the article doesn’t mention the kids getting in their fair share of trouble doesn’t mean they didn’t, including underage kids in a news article is a hassle and barely worth doing when they are the main or only part of a story.

I definitely wouldn’t say it’s a certainty, but it’s a pretty strong coincidence to have all three of those sudden outbursts back to back out of the blue if they are completely unrelated. And even if that didn’t happen the odds were already high enough before making that connection.

That behaviour is very much in-line with those types of clubs. Whether the illegal thing be drugs, or sex stuff, or just the actual real life secret political clubs that were only about corruption and collusion, which sound super tame now, but are already bad enough. And those clubs do very often end up coming out that they were still infiltrated with spies, or started by spies in some cases. Like, these aren’t uncommon or brand new, they have been around for thousands of years.

It’s actually very believable.