Sure but I rope him in because of his try hard “Yes.” Presumably he envisions it as him passing his verdict on any given situation. I see it as him (and by extension his platform) endorsing everything in the contextually relevant chain that Ackerman posted.

Super cool that billionaires (one that bought out a huge social media network, conveniently) and politicians are colluding in public to tarnish the opponent of their choice in candidate. Lucky they’re not journalist and are spreading these reddit tier investigation/accusations through social media. Very cool and not illegal feeling at all.

If this is accurate—and I do not know that it is—it would constitute one of the gravest violations of journalist ethics in presidential debate history. If true, multiple senior people at @abc

If indeed this turns out to be true, which is looking increasingly likely,

Right, so all you blokes (though they can hardly be called that), Cruz, Musk and Ackerman. You’ll all be resigning when this comes out as bullshit right? Since ethics and integrity are super important right? How can your constituents or shareholders have any faith in you if you don’t? If them (ABC and Harris) doing this is such a grave violation; your all but reporting it as fact should be nearly the same level.

Also, just super love Cruz, truly dedicated to swallowing Trumps balls to the end. If ethics are a big problem we should be hearing Cruz complaining about Trump lying 33 times during the debate.

Oh what’s that, we don’t hear anything? Ah well, Cruz’ mouth is probably full, give Donny a minute or two.

Right, I’m sure they do. I just have a hard time believing the bloke who jumped in a tow truck in a tantrum and drove it into other peoples property truly thought that this was the case.

Don’t get me wrong I see the news report from five years ago of it happening but old mate realistically probably didn’t think the guy he told repeatedly to get away from his car was actually stealing it. Edit:

“Dude, put my f–king truck down now! I’m warning you,” the suspect identified as Laiosa yells at the driver.  “I’m warning you, motherf–ker! Get the f–k away from my truck!” he continues before jumping into the tow truck and barreling down the street with his truck attached.

Definitely a guy that thinks he’s being robbed and not pissed that he’s being towed guys, totally.

“He said the tow truck was unmarked, the guy made threatening comments to him and he thought the guy was robbing his truck,” he told The Post.

Oh yes, the guy getting towed totally thought he was getting robbed. A car thief that brought a… tow truck. In broad daylight. Is there a gang a car thieves out there intentionally trying to get locked up? Or is this as shit a cope for a 55 year old as it sounds?

Good tips, thanks!! I’ll definitely check it out.

Oh fuck buying Nvidia new, I was going to see if it depressed 40xx prices or even further for 3090 but I’m not sure it would.

Neat didn’t know that about rope, as you can guess largely due to having fuck all memory to work with. Is AMD viable with LLMs now? Honestly if I can make it work with an AMD GPU I just may because I agree screw Nvidia.

Last I tried was a fimbul merge for 10.4b with rope for creative writing which was great but yeah 3.1 is where I’ve landed lately. I’ll have to check out nemo! Like you mentioned I was sitting on money to grab a 3090 but I think I’ll wait for rtx50xx to drive down prices or just for dedicated hardware. I’ll be sure to keep an eye the AI subs though, clearly there’s a community for it here that’s interested in discussion.

Really into local hosting and open LLM’s I’ve largely stepped back due to ‘fatigue’. I’ve downloaded tweaked and reshuffle models and programs then a couple months will pass and it’s lept forward again. Which is good but I figured I’d wait until it slowed a bit.

I will say the fact I can run a decent 7b and even 10b models and get decent responses and times with a 3070 is impressive. AnythingLLM has been a really handy program for me. Still in development but it’s been neat working with RAG. I also moved from textgen to LMStudio and am really liking it. I like textgen but I felt it got a bit side tracked. A lot of good suggestions in here so cheers OP.

I’m-

RIP. Taken out by Valve legal team already, everyone bail.

And I’m not under NDA. I have signed no contracts, made no verbal agreements; I haven’t even clicked through a EULA.  This message does pop up when I launch Deadlock, but I didn’t click OK; instead, I hit the Escape key and watched it disappear.

I’m not a lawyer but I sure hope the writer of this checked with a lawyer before posting because that does not sound right.

Edit: Thank you Vodulas for pointing out this update appended to the article.

Update, August 12th: Turns out Valve was not fine with me trying Deadlock with friends; I’ve been banned from matchmaking! Oh well. Please feel free to make fun of me in the comments!

That’s fine and I’m saying that it is not a good idea to do so. I had figured my providing you with examples how intended voting behaviour can violate your proposed guideline would demonstrate that. Non English communities getting downvoted for… not being English is not intended or desired behaviour and deserves a more direct fix than a guideline.

No because that has nothing to do with why I downvoted the OP. Also, as I pointed out in an edit, my engagement with this post has likely driven it up in this specific instance anyway. Even if it doesn’t this went from being engaged by 2-3 people to a lot more real quick despite the OP largely neutral votes for the first hour, and now being -10 so clearly it doesn’t just drop the post off the face of the planet due to downvoting and probably other factors are considered.

Anyway, throughout this I’ve done my best to address every point you’ve brought up. Yet I’ve had multiple questions, some even asking for clarification, go ignored. So I think now is probably a good time for the old “agree to disagree”.

I mean if you want me to be specific then unfortunately I can do so. It’s more than I just disagree with you. It’s that I think your reasoning in the OP is very flawed and misrepresents the situation you are attempting to portray. Which felt dishonest initially but given your attempts to engage people who disagree I now assume misguided, sorry to say. Also I think people stating their views under the pretence of a question should be discouraged due to proximity behaviours like concern trolling (not implying that’s what you’ve been doing, just an example). Lastly, I super strongly oppose being shown content on a site like this that I can’t interact with. For your case it may make sense but I can super easily see it being abused by the cases in my example; where people can grandstand shitty politics(again as an example) but then the onus is on me for some reason to not engage with said content.

I appreciate the first part of your comment and the overall candour. However:

1. Which post? Because I only downvoted the OP because you essentially imply all people downvoting content In communities they aren’t in are doing so because they just don’t like it. I’m asserting people sometimes do with reason, like the flaming I mention. Also the OP isn’t really asking a question(imo), it’s stating your views with the question in the title as a means to do so. The rest, even you disagreeing with me I have not.
2. What assumption? My initial reply is explaining why people may downvote content when they aren’t in the community in cases outside the ones you’ve provided.
3. I don’t see how this is worth mentioning that I accept the reality that people don’t use vote mechanisms as they’re intended? Edit: if this is in regards my sports post on reddit remark that was me essentially saying “yeah sometime people don’t use it correctly which sucks” not “deal with it”. Though again said communities could avoid it by not allowing post that are just match titles etc.
4. Why would I when my issues with the OP still stand? Edit 2:
5. Definitely not advocating for downvoting content you just don’t like. For me content I don’t like doesn’t means it’s inherently “bad”. Bad for me means inflammatory, trolling, rule breaking, low effort etc.
6. The one vote against OP is offset by my upvotes of your other comments and engagement with the post; and is likely weighing it up more than down at this point.

I don’t view inane content as bad. So that rules me out for that case.

Me using functionality of a website in its intended fashion isn’t “policing”. I usually do that afterwards if it’s bad enough but usually a sub has to have a pattern of doing it before I filter it. I know sport subs that were just match/race titled would cop downvotes on reddit, which again sounds like an issues better addressed by the community it’s being posted too.

If I can see it and I view it as bad content it’s getting downvoted. Especially since such content usually is inflammatory political post from niche politic subs that have no problem espousing their politics in a “either you agree with us 100% or you’re wrong/the enemy”. The rest of the time it’s weird fetish porn.

I browse by all because it’s a good way to see communities/content I wouldn’t otherwise see if I stuck to a curated community list. Not being part of the community doesn’t matter because I’m still seeing the content and still behaving consistent with using the downvote button to collectively filter it out.

I think a better option is these communities opting for the post not to get sent to all. Which won’t happen because a lot of previously mentioned post; the target isn’t the community who already likely agree with them, it’s everyone else. Better yet these communities could implement rules against post that are clearly inflammatory/flaming but then where would they grandstand?