Getting reports from credible-sounding people who say they do indeed get these even if they've blocked him.
#Russia search engine query statistics (I suspect Yandex, judging from the colour scheme) for November 2024:
how to send a husband to SMO - 966
how to send a husband to the SMO without his consent - 198
how to send an ex-husband on SMO - 86
how to send a husband on SMO forum - 51
As you can see, the initiative to improve the material status of the family with an ‘one-way ticket’ does not always have to come from the head of the family, even in a patriarchal country like Russia 😉
There's a common behavior on the intarwebs that we need a word for.
When you ask for advice on how to do or avoid doing a thing, there's a category of person who will invariably respond by questioning your desire to do or not do that thing. Often aggressively/defensively, as they themselves are invested in doing the opposite of what you're asking about.
Examples from my own experience:
"Now that ebay will no longer simply credit a card, is there a way I can sell on ebay without giving them my bank account info?"
Response: replies from people who insist there's something wrong with you for not wanting to give ebay your bank account info. Nothing actually useful.
"Does anyone know of a decent webmail server that's not written in PHP?"
Response: Whole lot of deeply butthurt "what's wrong with PHP????!!?!?!" replies. (Answer: far too much to go into.) Not one useful answer.
What people like that need to do is not reply. Y'know, because that's what you do when you don't have an answer. But instead they go for the hard derail.
Sealioning is a great word for a certain kind of reply-guy behavior, that of badgering you to engage them on something you've said or which they've chosen to infer from what you've said. This isn't quite that. It is however bloody irritating.
These geese that cross the road in the marked crossings in Cambridgeshire UK...
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9qv915xwwzo
..remind me of when a few weeks ago, I crossed a busy street in a NW Portland neighborhood, one which had a press-to-activate pedestrian signal. As soon as I started across I realized that a coyote had joined me. Apparently he or she had been lurking nearby waiting for someone to come along and push the button.
There's an even bigger problem here, which is that at best these are summaries of output stages that are chained together in the model, NOT descriptions of the processes that generated those output stages.
OpenAI should be well aware that LLMs are not able to accurately report *why* they did something. They are only able to make up post-hoc rationalizations based on their context window including their output.
So these are at best guesses, not true descriptions of motivations or processes.
Whatever improvements ChatGPT o1-preview may have to offer, they've introduced a whole new layer of bullshit with the "status messages" that make up nonsensical tasks that it pretends to be doing.
This matters—a lot—because this particular bullshit is not a limitation of the system.
This is an active choice by OpenAI to mislead people about what the system is doing. It’s Wizard of Oz shit.
The fact that they use their own bullshit generator to do it is icing on the irony cake.
Software Engineer, mostly in the Pacific Northwest of late
Medical Informatics - Carrier-Grade Network Video Distribution - Real Time Clinical Telemetry
Formerly: Motorola, Tektronix, Intel, HP, Qualcomm, Nintendo; others you're less likely to have heard of.
Will code for pie. 🥧