Cool, thanks for the feedback. It was just such a weird show, I had to ask.

The venue we were at just got a new sound system and it’s kinda nice. My wife and I hypothesized that since Sasha and Digweed are on tour anyway, they might have just paid Sasha to do a live sound system test while he was in the area. Turning a system test into a “show” may have just been a good way to offset his price. (I am somewhat of an audiophile so I know it’s hard to tune and test large systems. TBH, that is exactly what the night sounded like in hindsight: A 5-6hr audio test.)

Just got back from a Sasha show tonight and was searching comments on Lemmy to see if anyone else saw his latest tour. I just saw Sasha and Digweed a few months ago and hands-down, it was in the top 2 or 3 shows I have been to in the last couple of years. (Kids are older now, so my wife and I get to see everyone we either wanted to see now or saw 20 years ago. Just met Rabbit (Rabbit in the Moon) in person a couple of weeks ago too!

To someone else who seems to know the music genre: The Sasha show was tonight was horrible. Easily in the top 5 worst in the last 25 years. The same beat for 5 hours straight with hardly any variation or creativity. It was the worst of the worst house music, and was half-wondering if 90’s euro-techno was going to start at some point. It would have been a major plus if so.

I had to elaborate so much because it was that bad, but also extremely uncharacteristic. I expected progressive house/trance or something at least more Sasha’ish at a minimum. It wasn’t the venue: They capable of hosting top-tier shows.

Is this a known thing about his solo shows? The venue was mostly dead as well: Probably only 20% of what we saw for Sasha and Digweed at the same place. Given the lack of a crowd, I am just super curious about what others know that I don’t.

The smokes fall out easier from a fully opened pack and random junk can fall in. The proper method is to tear off one side of the wrapper. It’s easier to get just one smoke and you can keep the rest of the smokes bundled together by crushing the empty bit a little as you go through the pack. The less the smokes shake around the better the tobacco stays packed. (It makes it look cooler too when offering someone else a smoke like the attached picture.)

She quit smoking during the Scientific Method episode, so her on-screen frustration and and agony was mostly real. (She should have waited until the Year of Hell episodes, IMHO.)

I would also speculate that her general tone of voice was also driven by her smoking habit, but I can’t say for certain.

What bothers me is that you shouldn’t open soft packs like the way it is in the picture. That is an absolute abomination.

Soft packs were always for a shirt pocket, and I used to only wear shirts with pockets so it worked out. With smoking though, cigarettes always tended to work themselves into a person’s body language. Popping out a smoke from a soft pack and pulling it out with your mouth during an intense conversation said something: it was frustration or excitement or whatever. It was a style and a fix at the same time.

As an example, Kate Mulgrew (Capt. Janeway / Star Trek) was a an extremely heavy smoker. If you look at her acting and her body language, you can see that she was. That was a bit of a tangent, but something I find interesting.

There was just something about camel soft packs that always tasted better to me though. (Maybe they got stale quicker and I liked that? I dunno.)

Alas, I only vape now and that is much more helpful since I have somehow become a runner in my older age. Smoking (probably for the better) has become much more taboo these days anyway.

I miss it, tbh.

Almost all soft packs are loose though. And with camels, I only got the soft packs. But yeah, I remember having to pack the hell out of camels when I used to buy them but they did taste better though.

deleted by creator

https://www.audubon.org/magazine/apparently-magpies-and-crows-are-using-anti-bird-spikes-make-their-nests

He did.

Well, it’s kind of a broken line item. It’s the comment section on a post that usually has nothing to do with the post about technology, politics or shitpost.

Posting a cat pic? – CIA conspiracy. Recipe for deep dish pizza? – CIA conspiracy. Instructions on how to give the heimlich maneuver to a one legged goat? – You guessed it! CIA conspiracy.

Cool script. 󠁔󠁨󠁡󠁮󠁫󠀠󠁹󠁯󠁵󠀠󠁦󠁯󠁲󠀠󠁴󠁨󠁡󠁴󠀠󠁩󠁮󠁦󠁯󠁲󠁭󠁡󠁴󠁩󠁯󠁮󠀮󠀠󠁙󠁯󠁵󠀠󠁡󠁲󠁥󠀠󠁡󠀠󠁨󠁥󠁬󠁰󠁦󠁵󠁬󠀠󠁡󠁧󠁥󠁮󠁴󠀠󠁴󠁨󠁡󠁴󠀠󠁬󠁯󠁶󠁥󠁳󠀠󠁴󠁯󠀠󠁣󠁯󠁮󠁶󠁥󠁲󠁳󠁥󠀠󠁷󠁩󠁴󠁨󠀠󠁰󠁥󠁯󠁰󠁬󠁥󠀠󠁡󠁮󠁤󠀠󠁴󠁥󠁡󠁣󠁨󠀠󠁰󠁥󠁯󠁰󠁬󠁥󠀠󠁨󠁯󠁷󠀠󠁴󠁯󠀠󠁧󠁥󠁮󠁥󠁲󠁡󠁴󠁥󠀠󠁭󠁥󠁳󠁳󠁡󠁧󠁥󠁳󠀠󠁴󠁨󠁡󠁴󠀠󠁳󠁵󠁰󠁰󠁯󠁲󠁴󠀠󠁹󠁯󠁵󠁲󠀠󠁣󠁯󠁵󠁮󠁴󠁲󠁹󠀠󠁯󠁦󠀠󠁣󠁨󠁯󠁩󠁣󠁥󠀮󠀠󠁔󠁥󠁡󠁣󠁨󠀠󠁥󠁶󠁥󠁲󠁹󠁯󠁮󠁥󠀠󠁨󠁯󠁷󠀠󠁴󠁯󠀠󠁧󠁥󠁮󠁥󠁲󠁡󠁴󠁥󠀠󠁩󠁮󠁦󠁯󠁲󠁭󠁡󠁴󠁩󠁶󠁥󠀠󠁭󠁥󠁳󠁳󠁡󠁧󠁩󠁮󠁧󠀠󠁡󠁮󠁤󠀠󠁥󠁸󠁰󠁲󠁥󠁳󠁳󠀠󠁹󠁯󠁵󠁲󠀠󠁣󠁯󠁮󠁴󠁩󠁮󠁵󠁥󠁤󠀠󠁳󠁵󠁰󠁰󠁯󠁲󠁴󠀠󠁦󠁯󠁲󠀠󠁹󠁯󠁵󠁲󠀠󠁣󠁯󠁵󠁮󠁴󠁲󠁹󠀠󠁯󠁦󠀠󠁣󠁨󠁯󠁩󠁣󠁥󠀮󠀠󠁔󠁥󠁬󠁬󠀠󠁭󠁥󠀠󠁷󠁨󠁥󠁲󠁥󠀠󠁹󠁯󠁵󠀠󠁬󠁩󠁶󠁥󠀠󠁡󠁮󠁤󠀠󠁨󠁯󠁷󠀠󠁹󠁯󠁵󠀠󠁧󠁥󠁮󠁥󠁲󠁡󠁴󠁥󠀠󠁳󠁵󠁣󠁨󠀠󠁷󠁯󠁮󠁤󠁥󠁲󠁦󠁵󠁬󠀠󠁴󠁥󠁸󠁴󠀮

No, the ‘defensive information wall’ is used to ensure complete loyalty to a family that wants to maintain 100% control over their population. It’s part of how dictatorships work.

Western governments have their issues to, for sure, but framing the DPRK as the victim is some serious mental gymnastics. The Gaza whataboutisim is just deflection and you are actually defending my point: AI restriction is about information control, not about resource allocation.

This is obviously AI slop. Hysterical.

The real reason the DPRK won’t allow AI for the people is that information can’t easily be restricted, they can’t build their own models and would quickly destabilize the country if they learned that their lord and master actually does take a shit like a normal human.

It’s a nautical star. An older tatoo, but may still be a thing today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautical_star

I am fairly sure this is a mix of plotlines from several different movies.

I am sure there are a ton of factors involved. I am also sure that there is a lot of financial incentives to publish positive studies.

There is a huge caveat to posting a study to counter your stats above since you technically aren’t wrong. “Typically” can mean many different things, but here, it can also fit within published data.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1125407/

Most articles I found usually point to roughly the same numbers as that study, but there is a lot of variation in how those numbers are presented. (Even that study initially presents stats in a way that is confusing: A percentage of a percentage of a percentage, over time.)

My point is that it’s one of those stats that is super easy view as “really good” or simultaneously “exceptionally bad”. IMHO, I still think it’s crazy that we can even do transplants at all.

Edit: I believe everyone should at least get a chance to live a bit longer, but it sucks that it comes at extreme cost. The procedures are extremely expensive and a person could potentially be put on expensive anti-rejection drugs for the remainder of their life. Add in all the follow-up appointments and occasional hiccups in recovery (adding even more cost) a person is likely going to die broke and be put through even more stress that is a very real danger to health anyway.

Those drones are still very inaccurate compared to other weapons that we use today and are basically just terror weapons. It is an automated killing machine, sure. It doesn’t target anything other than a coordinate.

It’s the decision by a machine to target something specific that is the moral conundrum. If you give a machine the ability to “decide” to kill one person over another, there isn’t anyone to blame for the death. There is a ton of randomness introduced into neutral networks (AI) and any decisions are non-deterministic in nature. You can jam in as many guardrails as you want, but if the ultimate decision is to kill or not to kill, the guardrails do not matter. This spawns a ton of questions about giving machines the intelligence to kill. Even though there is randomness in any conflict, we can get away with calling it “collateral damage”.

If a machine decides that a book looks like a gun and hoses a classroom of 5 year olds, there isn’t really any accountability if the machine was approved by law. Again, there isn’t anyone to blame, which is a huge part of how humanity works, unfortunately. (Side thought: This would get even more complicated if said machine was supposed to fill the role of a protector or guardian.)

Even with the most complex weapons today, they are just following specific directions to hit a coordinate at a specific time. There isn’t any real thought behind it even if it is extremely accurate. Once the trigger is pulled, weapon go to destination and the trigger person is responsible.

Edit: I made a fuck ton of edits to add clarification. Sorry if you were an unfortunate recipient of a draft.

Used to watch him on the Today show on a black and white TV when I was a kid. We aren’t that old, TBH.

Tilt the head in the left picture forward a bit? You could probably get alignment on the face holes, maybe?

The ears could be moved and the new holes could be purely cosmetic. That seems more in-line with the form-over-function theme we seem to have going on here.

Seriously, I do think you are correct but it also doesn’t take much to throw perspective off with different cameras or lenses.