While I envy your ability to get close to wildlife, loosing their fear of humans is really very dangerous for Sand Hill Cranes especially.

Sounds like a skill issue. Good translation is hard and is rarely a literal one to one mapping of syntax and diction. It’s an interpretive art.

Sounds like a skill issue. Bad translations are bad because they don’t find good ways to translate these kinds of things. As you say, translation isn’t just about the words, it’s about cultural context. But, bad translations aren’t inevitable just because good translations are difficult.

We all wear a mask.

I got my first Gmail address through an invite during the beta release in late 2004.

Just one paragraph? I understand why that feels like an indicator of LLM use these days, but that actually sounds like a fairly common mistake human writers might make. Author decides to move a topic to a different section, copies it and rewords to suite new placement and forgets to remove the section from it’s original spot. A pro shouldn’t be making that kind of mistake, but it’s a particularly difficult one to spot in reviewing the article. It’s an error that is especially difficult to spot if you’re the author because of your own familiarity with the article. The only effective way I found to combat those kinds of mistakes in my writing was to delay my own review of my writing (sometimes as long as a day or two) after significant writing or edits. Clearly that strategy is unworkable in a fast paced journalism setting, where that kind of space between writing and editing cannot meet deadlines.

This would look a lot different than the similar AI slop tell I see in news articles that repeat the headline across multiple paragraphs in a row with different wording and no new details or clarifications. I don’t see any of this in the article. I could not find the repeated paragraphs that you’re talking about. Calling back to previous points in an essay with various subsections, even repeating important points and details is often just good writing.

Does it really matter what the machines “think” if they steal water and other resources from poor and vulnerable communities on a scale that makes Nestlé jealous?

I see the irony is lost on you.

Maybe don’t screenshot late at night with your phone’s blue filter engaged.

That’s like picking fights with strangers to manage your anger.

That also sounds a lot like the kind of comments that Reddit (and Lemmy, and really any social network with votes) grooms for if you prefer up votes to arguing with pedants and trolls. Eventually all your left with are boring overqualified comments or inflammatory comments when the mob rules and you are striving/solving for the most popular/engaging answer. It’s like conversational least squares analysis.

I wonder where the LLM trolls are? Maybe they are just so subtle, we haven’t noticed them. Maybe LLMs aren’t hallucinating answers, so much as they and trolling us. And here is where I qualify my answer in an attempt to quell the fools that might think anything I’ve said here implies that LLMs are anything close to sapient.

Occam’s razor doesn’t apply because a flat earth is an exceedingly complex and irregular explanation for the even the most basic naked eye astronomical observations we can make.

It only does this for things (usually municipal or government related) with a well defined, continuous, and singluar boundary. Search for nearby Lake Buena Vista, City of Orlando, or Orange County and Google Earth behaves exactly that way. But Disney’s land holdings are likely not completely contiguous.

Logically most people would want to see the boundary of all the Disney things when they search for Disney World, but that’s also not a real region with a well defined simple boundary Google can show and so it doesn’t. Google Earth can represent points (or geolocated 3D buildings that are essentially points), lines (like roads), polygons, and elevation. In fact, you can force Google to do this by collecting the pins of various locations into a list. When you select the list, Google zooms to the level that shows them all. But Google Maps would be the tool to search for “all the Disney properties” or “all the burrito places near me” to get quick and made to order lists like this, Google Earth simply isn’t built to to that.

So you’re new to reading maps? Is that the joke? Because the resort is the collection of all the various parks. Magic Kingdom is just to the north, Epcot is off to the east a bit, Hollywood Studios (now a part of Disney) is to the southeast, just south of Epcot, Blizzard Beach is mostly south and a little west, Animal Kingdom is south west, the Disney Golf courses are northwest. This point is basically the centeroid of all of those places because none of them are Disney World alone, they are only Disney World in the collective. It’s not like Disneyland, which is a single park in the middle of town. Yes, they built in a swamp. What you’ve zoomed into is undeveloped land that I’m pretty sure Disney owns.

So, yes, that is Disney world, but I wouldn’t send you a closeup of my nipple if you asked for a selfie.

Plugs, connectors, and cables often break, corrode, get vandalized, etc. The physical connections on most of the electronic devices I’ve owned have been the first thing to fail. The wireless connections and wireless charging has NEVER been something that I’ve ever had to worry about physically breaking. I’d wage that infrastructure maintenance is going to cost much more in the long run than the cost of inefficiency introduced by wireless charging.

It’s because the precision is overstated in the conversion to imperial. If they’re going to convert units they could at least give the correct significant digits. It should have read (if one insists on not just leaving it in metric):

• Operational altitude: nearly 1 mile (1.5km)
• Weight: Under 1 ton (imperial or metric. Take your pick, it hardly matter.)

NJ won’t even let them pump gas.

Why should anyone bother replying to your bat shit crazy questions if you’re just going to delete the post out of shame a few days later?

Why is the thumbnail preview throbbing?

You’re specifically crafting a definition for disappeared that does not correspond to the idea that OP is talking about. They are not using disappeared in that kind of literal way. Another turn of phrase or word that they could have used would be “swept under the rug”, “downplayed”, “minimized” “dismissed”, “de-emphasized”. Maybe disappeared isn’t the perfect word, but there’s no need to be so hung up on your own definition specifically crafted to support misunderstanding. That kind of rhetoric is a kind of arguing in bad faith.